Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

National Enterprise Board

1. Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the relationship between the NEB and its subsidiaries and on the NEB guidelines.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): The text of the memorandum agreed between the National Enterprise Board and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., and published by them, has already been made available to Parliament. The draft guidelines for the NEB are being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of each House, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Mr. Grylls: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Opposition think that his guidelines for the National Enterprise Board are reasonable? Will he refuse to be persuaded by the TUC or anybody else to allow the NEB to follow an aggressive takeover policy? Will he confirm that the NEB must consult him before it acquires more than a 10 per cent. stake in any company?

Mr. Varley: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman put to me in the latter part of his question, but that does not mean that I shall withhold authority. It will depend on the circumstances of the case.
There have been extensive consultations not only with the CBI and the TUC but with the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the NEB itself. The NEB will remain a major instrument of Government policy in its approach to industrial strategy.

Mr. Madden: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's article by the industrial correspondent of The Guardian, in which he criticises the intentions of the guidelines? Does he agree that if the wildly optimistic assumptions on which the Public Expenditure White Paper has been drafted, particularly regarding economic growth, are to be met, the activities of the NEB need to be boosted tremendously and not starved completely?

Mr. Varley: I agree that the activities of the NEB need not be curtailed, and that it has an increasing rôle to play.
I should think that the article in The Guardian, which I have read, was written before the guidelines were published. Some of its comments are inaccurate and misleading.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Who is responsible to the Comptroller and Auditor General for ensuring that public funds voted to the NEB and, through it, to its subsidiaries are spent in the way that Parliament was informed they would be spent? Is it the NEB or the accounting officer in the Department of Industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman define the relative functions of some officer in the NEB and the accounting officer in the Department of Industry in that respect?

Mr. Varley: I cannot go into that matter in great detail, because it would take too long. However, I am seized of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. My short answer is that the accounting officer in my Department, the Permanent Secretary, will be responsible to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I know that there is some controversy about that matter, and I shall be looking into it further.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection have been forecasting for the current year the lowest rate of investment in manufacturing industry for 15 years. What contribution will the NEB make to improve that level of investment?

Mr. Varley: I hope that it will make a great contribution. There has already been one modest attempt, although it is early days yet, to help the machine tool industry. The NEB has further ideas about helping with investment projects of


a similar kind. I hope to have regular discussions with the NEB to see what more needs to be done.

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many times he has had meetings with the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board since the Chairman took up his appointment.

Mr. Varley: On a number of occasions.

Mr. Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is rather more precise than the non-answers I have recently been given by the Prime Minister and also by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the same point? Does he not admit that there is a conspiracy to deny the House an opportunity to know what monitoring is taking place in regard to the NEB? Will he confirm that a great many meetings are taking place behind his back, as is evidenced by the appointment of the Chairman of British Leyland?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman should not make too much of that matter, because he will know that every major appointment to a public corporation, or, as in this case, to a company in the ownership of the Government, is made in consultation with the Prime Minister of the day. There is nothing unusual in what has happened over the appointment of Sir Richard Dobson, or in the practice of appointments by the present Government compared with the practice under previous Governments.

Mr. Marshall: That is not true.

Mr. Varley: I should like to have some evidence that that is not true. My guess is that when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister, he had something to say about the appointments of some of the chairmen of nationalised industries.
On the question of information, I think that I have already given a great deal of information—the latest instance being the publication, today, of the draft guidelines of the NEB.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NEB has as a basic principle the encouragement of industrial democracy? Will he explain how the appointment of a man currently on

£58,000 a year, and undertaking part-time work at £22,500 a year and with well-known anti-nationalisation views, will inspire British Leyland workers?

Mr. Varley: It is not for me to comment on the level of salary that Sir Richard Dobson obtained in a previous company. Salary figures like £58,000 are incomprehensible to me. Ministers do not get salaries of that kind. I hope that Sir Richard Dodson gains the confidence of the work force pretty quickly and that he works through and takes a personal hand in ensuring progress towards industrial democracy and participation in that company.

Mr. Hordern: Will Lord Ryder be running the pension fund of the National Enterprise Board? If so, it will cause some concern, considering his experience of running the Reed pension fund. Is it not time that he made a statement about his experiences?

Mr. Varley: I am not prepared to answer questions on the substance of what the hon. Member asks. In fact, I think that I am correct in saying that police inquiries are still being considered. It would be wholly inappropriate of me to comment on what the hon. Member said.

North Staffordshire

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has now arranged a date for his visit to North Staffordshire.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I have arranged to visit North Staffordshire on 12th March.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that he will receive a very warm welcome from the people and civic leaders of North Staffordshire, who will want to prove to him that the area is a sub-region with unique problems—not necessarily shared by the West Midlands—which have been neglected, overlooked and underrated by successive Governments? We look forward to seeing my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that I shall be welcomed there as I have been welcomed in days gone by. I have arranged to meet the Staffordshire County Council. I hope that during the meeting I shall


hear from the Council the range of problems that it wants to put to me.

Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will consider relaxing IDC control in the West Midlands.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The industrial development certificate control continues to have an important part to play in the Government's regional policy, and a temporary suspension or relaxation of the control would not be justified.

Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend accept that the control is almost nonexistent in the West Midlands, because the number of refusals is very small? Nevertheless, the fact that the controls are there stops business and industry from seeking to move into the West Midlands. Will my hon. Friend consider again the possibility of a temporary restriction—say, a two years' suspension—to give business men who are talking about not being able to go there a chance to put their money where their mouths are?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is often put to me that IDC control stops firms from making applications, but I have no evidence to support that. I ought to put the matter into perspective. In the West Midlands, only seven applications were refused, and 277 were approved. It is important to bear in mind that these certificates are dealt with on their respective merits, in relation to the area for which the application is made.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that unemployment in manufacturing industry in the West Midlands is now higher than it is in many of the development areas, including Scotland; that it is of longer duration; and that wages are lower than those paid elsewhere? Will the hon. Gentleman consider what assistance can be given to the region, if he is still unwilling to relax IDC control?

Mr. Mackenzie: My hon. Friends and I are concerned about unemployment in the West Midlands. I sometimes wish that Conservative Members were as concerned as we are about the problem. I say that because they have voted against proposals put forward in this House

which would have saved a number of jobs. If Tory Members had their way, we should have lost about 56,000 jobs in the West Midlands alone.

Mr. Stonehouse: How many civil servants are employed in assessing these applications? As so few are turned down, as unemployment is so high, and as so many firms have been prevented from developing more efficient units in the past, should not this policy be scrapped?

Mr. Mackenzie: IDC policy is an integral part of regional policy, which is supported by both sides of the House. I know that when we are in the midst of a recession it is easy to say that we should scrap regional policy, because it does not of itself create jobs, but it would be foolish to scrap the policy in view of the successes that we have had with it over a period of years.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister aware that regional policy is designed to help those regions that are in the most trouble, and that the West Midlands today is an area in more trouble than almost any other region? Will he accept that, far from saving jobs in the West Midlands, the number of jobs has been decimated by the restrictive policies which his Government have pursued?

Mr. Mackenzie: The policy advocated by the hon. Gentleman and his attitude to Chrysler and other firms would have reduced the number of jobs available.

Motor Industry (Aid)

4. Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the total grants, loans and subsidies he has made to the car industry; and what is his estimate of the number of jobs in the industry saved by this support, and the cost per job.

Mr. Varley: Most of the financial assistance to the car industry is being made available to British Leyland and Chrysler. So far, £200 million has been invested in new equity in British Leyland and £18 million has been paid to Chrysler to meet losses in 1976, and these funds relate to all the activities of the two companies. It is difficult to estimate precisely how many jobs have been saved overall, but the employment of many hundreds


of thousands depends on the car industry, particularly in the West Midlands.

Mr. Storehouse: Does my right hon. Friend expect a financial return on this investment, and, if so, when?

Mr. Varley: As my right hon. Friend knows, there are risks involved in all these cases, and these risks have never been denied. I know that my right hon. Friend will have been pleased to see the latest results achieved by British Leyland. It has much better opportunities than hitherto and it is the largest single market holder in the United Kingdom. In addition, its exports are doing well, particularly its commercial vehicles.
As for Chrysler, I hope that the integration that will take place within Chrysler's world-wide operation will provide new prospects there.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that all the Ministers in the Cabinet know what is going on? If so, is it not odd that the Secretary of State for the Environment is slashing expenditure on roads for these motor cars to be driven on, and is helping the GLC to stop people from driving their motor cars into London? Is not that an odd way to run a policy?

Mr. Varley: All my Cabinet colleagues know what is going on within the Department of Industry, because I make it known to them from time to time. I am sure that the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments, and particularly that, as I understand it, although the Conservative Party is in favour of public expenditure restrictions immediately, when it comes to a particular policy—such as the road policy—the hon. Gentleman wants to go ahead and increase it.

Mr. Tom King: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions have taken place with representatives of the industry regarding the provision of further assistance to the motor industry.

Mr. Varley: My Department has been approached by a group of business men seeking support for their proposal to acquire Jensen Motors Limited from the receiver.

Mr. King: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in addition to that

additional request for support, he has met the latest recruit to representatives of the motor industry, in the shape of the new Chairman of British Leyland, Sir Richard Dobson? Will he say whether that appointment has his support?

Mr. Varley: I have not had an opportunity so far to meet Sir Richard Dobson, but I hope to do so shortly, with other members of the British Leyland board. Of course his appointment has my support.

Mr. Freud: As the Secretary of State seems to accept over-capacity in the motor car industry, what plans has he to ensure that firms receiving public assistance accept public accountability?

Mr. Varley: The motor car industry not only comes under the scrutiny of the House; it is scrutinised by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, and from time to time I know that hon. Members will take the opportunity, through the Public Accounts Committee, to obtain further information.

Mr. Moonman: Is it a fact that in these discussions my right hon. Friend has taken account of the more successful end of the market—namely, Ford? Has he begun the monitoring arrangements with the other motor companies on the way in which they are using our resources?

Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend has a Question later on the Order Paper, which I hope will be reached if we make good progress. The high-level tripartite group has already had a very useful discussion, and further meetings are planned.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has not met the man who has been appointed responsible for the largest single investment ever made in a company in this country? Is it not incredible that he should not take the trouble to discuss the future of that industry with the chairman and discover the chairman's attitude? Does it not come as an incredible revelation, from a Government who say that they believe in accountability and that they have responsibility for the fortunes of this industry, that the Secretary of State has not even taken the trouble to meet the chairman-designate of that company?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of the issue.


Sir Richard Dobson was appointed by British Leyland itself, after consultation with the National Enterprise Board. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that Sir Richard Dobson was seen by the Prime Minister. In normal circumstances I would have been there, but I had an important prior engagement.

Concorde

5. Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the Government's plans for the future of the Concorde production line; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): My right hon. Friend has received a proposal from M. Cavaille, the French Minister of Transport, that there should be a ministerial meeting in Paris on 29th March to discuss the Concorde project. He has replied agreeing that such a meeting would be timely and useful. Ministers will review developments since the last ministerial meeting on 25th March 1975 and consider sales prospects and the future of the programme in the light of the decision by the United States Secretary for Transportation, Mr. Coleman, giving British Airways and Air France access to New York and Washington on a trial basis. I shall lead the British team at this meeting.

Mr. Arnold: I recognise that the commercial viability of Concorde must, regrettably, remain in doubt until this and other problems are solved, but to what extent do the Government regard themselves as committed to an open-ended subsidy to the suppliers of components and spare parts? Many of these suppliers are becoming increasingly worried about the future position.

Mr. Kaufman: The decision about spare parts was announced when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the President of France in 1974.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that Concorde is an enormous technological achievement but that it is also an enormous financial and environmental disaster? Is it not time that we got rid of the pretence that we can go on building Concordes to keep people employed and got down to the business of developing

alternative methods of producing items that are much more socially useful, so that aircraft workers, who give of their best and are highly trained, can use their experience and expertise in projects that will benefit the nation?

Mr. Kaufman: I do not accept that Concorde is an environmental disaster. Indeed, Mr. Secretary Coleman's judgment of last month showed that its environmental effects are minimal, and these will in any case be tested during the trial period. I agree with my hon. Friend that employment in the aircraft industry will be enhanced by diversification and spin-off. When I met the BAC workers at Filton last month, the management of BAC was able to give examples of spin-off, and in a recent answer to my hon. Friend I was able to give him examples of the kind of technological spin-off that has been gained from the Concorde programme itself.

Mr. Adley: I welcome the announcement of the meeting that the Minister is to have with our French partners. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he has studied the history of pioneering civil aviation developments and is aware that world airlines very often wait until they see one airline operating aircraft satisfactorily and effectively before placing orders? From a manufacturer's point of view this means a slow placing of orders to start with but orders coming in more quickly once the aircraft is off the ground. From a marketing point of view, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that this country will not repeat the mistakes of the past, of winning the manufacturing and design battle but losing orders?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even for St. David's Day, that is a long question.

Mr. Kaufman: I think that the future of Concorde will be decided by the way in which it is received on the world markets—and the most important test for Concorde will come when it faces the New York route.

Mr. Crawford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the money going to the flying white elephant of Concorde could better be diverted to Scottish Aviation, which is producing the Jetstream aircraft, which is something that is in demand by the aircraft industry?

Mr. Kaufman: Scottish Aviation will have the inestimable benefit of coming into public ownership later this year.

Mr. Warren: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give an assurance that when he meets the French Minister he will put forward a proposal to increase the number of aircraft beyond the 16 at which the limit stands? This is what matters to workers in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Kaufman: I cannot give a commitment of that kind. We must consider this matter in cost-effective terms. We must see what kind of costs there would be for future development of Concorde, and weigh that against the other outgoings to which the Government are committed.

Scottish Development Agency and National Enterprise Board

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the liaison between the Scottish Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, Sir. Officials of my Department and of other Departments concerned have had extensive consultations with officials of the NEB and of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies in order to establish satisfactory working relations.

Mr. Crawford: Does the Minister agree that the economic potentials of Scotland and England are now totally divergent? Does he not further agree that, because of Scotland's potential to expand and England's stagnation, it is vital for the Scottish Development Agency to be totally independent of the "lame duck" NEB? Does he agree that new jobs and new factories in Scotland can best be created by an expansionist policy rather than one that is dependent on a London-orientated, central demand management of the United Kingdom economy as a whole?

Mr. Kaufman: I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question. Parliament decided the basis on which the NEB and the Scottish Development Agency should operate.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in recent Government announcements to indicate that diminished resources will be

available to the Scottish Development Agency, as has been asserted by certain hon. Members? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the Scottish Development Agency retrains General Electric Company workers who are now redundant as a result of a diminution in Post Office orders, so that those workers can produce the new equipment that the Post Office urgently needs?

Mr. Kaufman: Questions about the Scottish Development Agency are for the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer, but I take an interest in the Post Office-supplying industries, and I take on board what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish Development Agency is more concerned with local government and the regeneration of the environment in Scotland, and does not have the resources or ability to regenerate Scottish industry?

Mr. Kaufman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn from the position he took when he and his party voted for the NEB to be kept out of Scotland. That was a totally opportunist vote.

Chrysler

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will publish in theOfficial Reportthe full list of conditions attaching to the rescue of Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.

Mr. Varley: Copies of the agreement that I reached with Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler United Kingdom, together with supporting documents, are available in the Library. The conditions are set out in the agreement.

Mr. Ridley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the expenditure of £162 million, the legal conditions are woefully inadequate? Does he further agree that there is nothing to stop Chrysler's siphoning off this money to America? When spending public money the Government should impose stricter conditions before they indulge in such largesse.

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The £162 million is a contingent liability. Whether that liability falls on the Government will depend on a series of factors, which have been


debated on many occasions in the House. There is no reason to believe that it will happen. The money will not be siphoned off to the United States. The monitoring is being conducted by Coopers and Lybrand, the Department's advisers, and we shall receive up-to-date reports, as required.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what commitments have been made with Chrysler should the losses in the current year exceed £60 million.

Mr. Varley: None, Sir.

Mr. Moonman: I understand that there is a limited liability and that the company will make no further payments beyond £10 million, should the debts go beyond £60 million. Some of us are worried because there is still no information about monitoring. Who are the Government's representatives monitoring the company?

Mr. Varley: I read with great interest my hon. Friend's letter in The Times this morning. I have already announced that Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand have been engaged on behalf of the Department to help with the monitoring. I am not yet in a position to announce the names of the Government directors. I hope to be able to say something within the next few weeks. Chrysler United Kingdom is to enter into a planning agreement with the Government, and I hope to be able to initiate discussions on that very soon. It is also to resuscitate its worker-participation scheme, which it mooted some time ago.

Mr. Nelson: Will the Secretary of State now answer the main Question? As Chrysler's share of the market is still substantially below what it will have to achieve to meet its objectives, there must be a chance that its losses will exceed £60 million. Just what is the taxpayer's liability if that should happen?

Mr. Varley: It is far too early to jump to the conclusion that there will be losses exceeding £60 million. I think that £18 million has so far been paid to Chrysler. The information that Chrysler gave to the Government in our discussions suggested that losses this year could be £40 million. There is a formula for the other £20 million. If the losses exceed £60 milion,

which I do not think they will, the Government will have to consider the situation afresh, but no provision has yet been made.

Mr. Madden: To revert to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), does my right hon. Friend consider a net increase in the size of the board of Chrysler United Kingdom to be justified? Does he agree with middle and senior management of Chrysler United Kingdom being made redundant and then retained as industrial advisers? Does he not think that that it is a highly dubious practice?

Mr. Varley: I am not going to get involved in the day-to-day management of Chrysler United Kingdom. We have made provision, so far as possible, to undertake the monitoring. It would be intolerable for me to assume that I can run Chrysler United Kingdom. I shall not do that or attempt to do it. As for the way in which the board is constituted, that is a matter for the Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler United Kingdom.

Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State said that he had made provision for monitoring, and then said that he did not intend to become involved in the day-today activities of Chrysler. Is it not outrageous that three months after the matter arose there are still no Government representatives? Since the Secretary of State appears to wash his hands of the matter, will he put in some Government directors to ensure that this vast amount of taxpayers' money is properly overseen.

Mr. Varley: Shortly.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will reconstitute the board of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has recently made three new appointments to the board, and he is considering making further appointments.

Mr. Hooley: That is a welcome answer. Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is now a crisis of confidence between the workers in the steel industry, the British Steel Corporation and management? That situation exists not only at the top but


in firms in Sheffield, such as the River Don Works. Does he not agree that until there is a radical change of structure in management, confidence is not likely to be restored?

Mr. Kaufman: I was pleased when, on 23rd January, the BSC and the TUC Steel Committee were able to sign an agreement that shows that they are in accord about the future, but I should welcome any initiative for improving industrial relations and better communications between workers and management.

Mrs. Bain: When can we expect an early announcement from the BSC that the £1,000 million investment for Hunterston will go ahead? That is the only way to ensure that steel-making in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire is maintained and that jobs there, and those which are dependent on the steel industry in Scotland, are maintained.

Mr. Kaufman: I am glad to see that the hon. Lady accepts that the steel industry in Great Britain can go forward only on the basis of an integrated Great Britain policy.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the reconstituted board of the British Steel Corporation that it is time to re-examine its whole strategy? Is it not better to base a strategy on prudent, sensible schemes rather than on excessively ambitious ones?

Mr. Kaufman: The Conservative Govment aimed hammer blows at the morale of the Steel Corporation through the Eden/Ridley policy and that constitutional monstrosity, the Joint Steering Group, which held up development programmes for so long. There will be no such meddling under this Government.

Miss Maynard: Does the Minister agree that if there were more local democratic control there would be better relations between management and men in the steel industry? When are the Government going to carry out their commitment to take into public ownership the profitable sections of the steel industry that have been hived off?

Mr. Kaufman: I agree with my hon. Friend that the improvement of industrial democracy within all the nationalised industries, including the

British Steel Corporation, is very important. We are blazing the trail in our Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, but there will have to be development in other industries as well.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Minister take this opportunity of making clear the Government's attitude to Sir Monty Finniston's future? Is it not disgraceful that there should be continuing uncertainty about the chairmanship after the end of the year? Will the Minister give a firm assurance, in view of the particular importance of the chairman and the agreement of 23rd January?

Mr. Kaufman: In reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) I made a statement about the chairmanship of BSC. The hon. Gentleman, who is a student of these matters, might have studied that before he asked his supplementary question.

Mr. Tom King: How does the Minister think he will attract the calibre of management needed in the nationalised industries in view of the sort of treatment the Government are now giving to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation? When will they resolve the question of his future—or is this to be another matter decided by the Prime Minister behind the Secretary of State's back?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Postmaster-General who capriciously sacked the Chairman of the Post Office. I shall not accept that kind of reflection from him.

Merseyside

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further plans he has to stimulate investment on Mersey-side and to improve its long-term employment prospects.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: We shall continue to call attention to the regional incentives available in the Merseyside Special Development Area.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend accept that Merseyside's unemployment problem is not merely a result of the world recession but that it is suffering from a structural, long-term decline? Will he, first, review the long-term investment


needs of the region to ensure stability of employment prospects for the future? Secondly, will he locate the headquarters of British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders on Merseyside as an act of faith in the area and as a boost to the confidence of its people? Thirdly, will he set up a Merseyside development agency analogous to the Development Agencies for Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Mackenzie: One of the first acts of the present Government was to make Merseyside a special development area, with all the advantages that that gives. The siting of the headquarters of British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders is still subject to discussion. The question of a Merseyside development agency is, I understand, to be the subject of a debate. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views then.

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members once again to cut the preamble and come to the question.

Government Aid

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied that the document "Criteria for Assistance to Industry" published by his Department in December 1975 is being observed by his Department.

Mr. Varley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gow: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the commitment in paragraph 1(5) of his Department's document that it will introduce measures to curb monopolistic practices in industry? What measures he has in mind to check monopolies in the Post Office and in the bus industry?

Mr. Varley: That does not arise from the hon. Gentleman's Question. However, the criteria have been extensively discussed with both sides of industry within the National Economic Development Council and they have been considered by the Industrial Development Advisory Board. There are risks, which are fairly set out in the document that we have made available to Parliament. I hope that as a result of that document the practices will be better understood.

Mr. Heseltine: As the document said that the most important objective was a return on the assets helped by the Government,

can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the budgeted return on those assets in the current year?

Mr. Varley: I cannot do that without notice. The hon. Gentleman chides the Government for providing the information. Under the Industry Act 1972, introduced by his Government, no criteria for assistance were published or made available to the House. The Minister in charge rejected an amendment that would have laid on the Government a duty to provide some criteria. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be more understanding about these matters. There are risks. Some firms will achieve viability very quickly after receiving Government assistance on a once-and-for-all basis. Others may take longer. It depends on the nature of the project. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much taxpayers' money has been paid out in the last 12 months to support industrial firms in financial difficulties.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: In the 12 months up to 31st January 1976, payments of just over £74 million have been made to firms under Part II of the Industry Act 1972 arising from circumstances in which companies have sought assistance to overcome immediate financial difficulties.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman happy that none of the money will be wasted? Having fallen at the first fence with the Scottish Daily News, is he certain that he is backing winners?

Mr. Mackenzie: As my right hon. Friend has just said, there are risks, but the whole point of Part II of the 1972 Act is to restore a company in financial difficulties—to help it to get on its feet and save a number of jobs. The Scottish Daily News is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that after the assistance to Chrysler and the proposed sacking of 8,000 shop floor workers, the management has been strengthened and the board of directors now exceeds 50 in number?

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not believe that that matter arises on this Question, but if my hon. Friend tables a Question I shall be pleased to answer it.

Mr. Cormack: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much was paid in tax by private industry during the period in question? If not, will he write to me giving the figure?

Mr. Mackenzie: I cannot answer without notice, so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Productivity

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has plans to initiate a campaign for improved productivity in manufacturing industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The improvement of productivity is one of the prime objectives of the Government's industrial strategy now being developed in co-operation with both sides of industry.

Mr. Neubert: In view of the OECD figures, showing that, on average, the British industrial worker produces, per shift, less than half the amount produced by his German and American counterparts, and not much more than half the amount produced by his opposite number in Japan, is it not time for the Secretary of State to take more vigorous steps to improve the situation?

Mr. Carmichael: That is the whole purpose of seeking to improve productivity, and of the joint discussions between the two sides of industry and the Government.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Secretary of State prepared to use his influence in the Cabinet to ensure that wide-scale import controls are instituted, as one means of improving the position in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Carmichael: The question of import controls has been well debated. My hon. Friend will realise that they must be seriously considered, because they are a two-edged weapon, and it is better that this should be done by agreement with foreign Governments to protect particular sections of British industry, than

that we should take action across the board.

Mr. Tebbit: May I emphasise, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Secretary of State's attitude a little earlier, that this is a question and not an expression of an opinion? Will not the Government's measures to protect jobs by subsidy payments, during a period when industrial output is stagnating, lower productivity?

Mr. Carmichael: They will not lower productivity. We are hoping, as a result of many of the schemes organised by the Government, considerably to improve the capital effectiveness of British industry and to increase our productivity, to await the period when the world upswing in trade occurs.

Wool Textile Scheme

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to authorise further grants under the Wool Textile Scheme.

Mr. Carmichael: Under the current scheme for the wool textile industry applicants have two more years, until 31st December 1977, to complete projects that have been approved, and grants will continue to be paid as projects progress. As already announced, the sum set aside for the scheme has been increaed from £15 million to £18 million. The Economic Development Committee proposed a further scheme of support under the Industry Act on 4th February 1976, and this is now being considered.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that any further extension of this scheme will outlaw the provision under which funds are available for firms that close plants, thereby making thousands of textile workers unemployed and throwing them on the scrap heap, with their smashed machines? When will the Department start to prepare a proper plan for the textile industry, based on providing decent employment and combating unfair competition, so providing the industry with a future?

Mr. Carmichael: The recent discussions with the Wool Textiles EDC had this point very much in mind, including the question of imports. Although the demand for wool textiles, particularly in the export markets, shows signs of


picking up, the industry needs to improve productivity to be competitive. It is therefore impossible to rule out the possibility of further redundancies.

Planning Agreements

Mr. Nelson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry which companies have been approached by his Department with a view to setting up planning agreements.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions are currently taking place between his Department and industry with a view to concluding planning agreements.

Mr. Kaufman: My Department is continuing its exploratory discussions with a number of leading companies in manufacturing industry, following discussions with representatives of both sides of industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister aware that one reason why many companies are unwilling to enter into planning agreements lies in the fact that they feel that by handing over commercial information to the Government they may be committing suicide? Will he comment on the alarming contents of the guidelines to the National Enterprise Board, under paragraph 26 of which companies are to supply confidential information to the Government—information which, in turn, may be fed to the NEB to enable the Board to take the initiative?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should know that a vast amount of confidential commercial information is passed to Governments all the time, with or without planning agreements. Massive amounts of commercial information were passed to the Conservative Government under the Industry Act 1972. In this case it will be a voluntary passing on of information, to enable sensible planning agreements to take place with the present Government.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister confirm or deny Press reports that the planning agreement system no longer requires companies proposing to enter into planning agreements to submit detailed corporate plans, but that the situation has now been changed to one in

which there is little more than general discussion of a company's future?

Mr. Kaufman: I categorically deny those statements. There will have to be corporate plans under planning agreements, and the most detailed discussion will be followed by actual agreements lodged with the Department.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister aware that the reason why he has not so far been able to announce any success for planning agreements, except in regard to companies that have no choice, is that the companies themselves are aware of the policy work being undertaken by the Labour Party policy committee, which is already planning the use of compulsory powers within the planning machinery? Will he give a categorical assurance that at the time of the next election there will be no revision of planning agreement arrangements which could convert existing discussions into much more compulsory ones?

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting that after the next election we shall be in a position to carry out all our plans. The hon. Gentleman has taken off into orbit again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question, if I am allowed to complete the sentence. The policy of the present Government on planning agreements is enshrined in the Industry Act 1975. Planning agreements are voluntary, and planning agreements made this year will be voluntary.

CONTEMPT OF COURT (PHILLIMORE REPORT)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Attorney-General whether the Government have now completed their consideration of the Phillimore Report on Contempt of Court; and when they propose to introduce legislation.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): The Government are still considering the Phillimore Report and further consultation is required before any firm conclusions can be reached. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 26th November last, we also have to take account of the Law Commission's work on offences against the administration of justice.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that in 1973 the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that this subject was in urgent need of attention? Does he further recollect that the Phillimore Committee reported in May 1974 and that since then this urgent matter has been received with a deafening silence? When will something happen?

The Attorney-General: As I told the hon. and learned Gentleman, this is a difficult subject. It is bound up with the Law Commission's work, which has been given a great deal of consideration, and there has been a great deal of consultation. I agree that this matter requires urgency, but it also requires thoroughness. In my view, thoroughness in this context must be a priority over urgency.

Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction at the way in which his Department appears to be in a state of fossilised inactivity, not just about the Phillimore Report on contempt but about the Faulks Report on defamation, the Younger Report on privacy and the Franks Report on official secrets? When will he do anything about anything?

The Attorney-General: The answer to the first question is "No, I am not aware of that". Each of the other matters to which the hon. Member referred is within the province not of my Department but of another Department. Of course, on matters such as those which are the concern of the Lord Chancellor, I answer for him.

Mr. Percival: We quite understand, of course, the importance of the decisions that the Government will take on this Report, and therefore can see that it is right and proper that it should receive careful consideration, but the Committee reported in May 1974. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how much longer the consideration will continue?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir, I cannot. I have already said that the Law Commission's Report has to be taken into account, and that there have to be and

have been consultations, and there will be more. I can only hope that the Government will be able to announce conclusions before too long.

CRIMINAL CHARGES (REINSTATEMENT)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Attorney-General how many times in the past year he has given approval for charges to be reinstituted after they had been thrown out by a magistrates' court; and how many times he has allowed a prosecution on the same charges to be commenced after the defendant had been acquitted at jury trial of the same offences.

The Attorney-General: My responsibility for individual cases is limited to those in which the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned. The Director is not required to seek my approval for the reinstatement of charges on which a magistrates' court has refused to commit for trial. It is open to him to consult me about any individual case, but the number of cases in which he has done so could not be ascertained without disproportionate expense.
As to the second limb of the right hon. Member's Question, I refer him to the answer that I gave to his Question on 17th February 1976.

Mr. Stonehouse: What is the Attorney-General trying to hide? Is he not aware of the dictum of Lord Shawcross, when he was Attorney-General, that any Attorney-General of the day is responsible for the activities of the DPP? Is the House not entitled to know how many cases are reinstituted after they have been thrown out in the lower courts? Is this not a frightful waste of time of the courts? Will he now consider giving a reply and providing some justification for this obscene treatment of the courts of law?

The Attorney-General: Reinstatement of charges that are suitable in relation to the evidence that has been taken on the committal proceedings are expressly authorised by Act of Parliament in conditions that appear in the Act. When that takes place, it is of course open to a defendant to take his own proceedings, to ask the court to remove that part of the indictment.

LEGAL PROFESSION (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Gow: asked the Attorney-General when he expects the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession to start work.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): As soon as may be after the appointment of the chairman and other members has been settled.

Mr. Gow: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that now that the Prime Minister has announced the setting up of the Royal Commission it is important that the chairman and members should be appointed and work should begin as soon as possible?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly it is important that the matter should proceed quickly. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an important Commission and that it is important that we get it right.

Mr. Ashley: Would my hon. and learned Friend be prepared to make two recommendations to the Prime Minister—first, that the report on legal services should not be delayed by the Royal Commission and, second, that lawyers should not dominate its membership?

The Solicitor-General: On the second question, I shall of course pass on what my hon. Friend says to the Prime Minister. The first matter is to some extent within the powers of the Royal Commission itself, but I take the point.

Mr. Brittan: Will the Government be putting forward proposals to the Royal Commission to implement the Solicitor-General's suggestion that judges should meet housewives, trade union officials and young radicals? If so, what will those proposals be?

The Solicitor-General: The Government will probably not be making any suggestions. This question falls outside the initial Question, but since I have been asked I would say that I was simply endeavouring to acknowledge what I thought was a problem that was widely recognised—that people from differing backgrounds would often find it helpful to meet one another a little informally.

Mr. Percival: I agree with the Solicitor-General that it is important to get the membership of the Royal Commission right. To that end, the Prime Minister said that there would be wide consultation before the appointment of either chairman or members. Have the Government decided what the width of that consultation will be? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any information on that now?

The Solicitor-General: Consultations are proceeding. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it is not normal to give details of who has suggested what to whom. However, if he has a specific question about the consultations, it should be directed to the Prime Minister.

LEGAL SERVICES

Miss Fookes: 57. Miss Fookes asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to appoint a legal ombudsman with power to investigate maladminstration in the provision of legal services to the public.

The Attorney-General: No. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deal with complaints concerning court services. The machinery for investigating complaints about the provision of services by the legal profession is a matter within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th February.

Miss Fookes: But is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people will be greatly disappointed by this? Is he aware that it is the hardest job in the world to make a case stick against a lawyer who may be incompetent or dilatory?

The Attorney-General: There are already various ways in which that can be done. There are, for example, the lay observer who deals with matters complained of against solicitors and the lay member of the disciplinary body. The Lord Chancellor himself deals with complaints about legal aid. I am not suggesting that all these matters necessarily deal with the problem raised by the hon. Lady, but the Royal Commission will be able to do so.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not appreciate that at a time when the ordinary citizen finds it difficult to get legal help or advice—and even when it is available it is at great expense—it is incomprehensible that a massive number of lawyers should sit in the other place deciding whether there has been a second virgin birth? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that that is a complete waste of public money and legal skills, which we can ill afford?

The Attorney-General: I have always known that my hon. Friend was expert at discovering paradoxes. What takes place in another place is a little removed from this Question.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Fitt (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the violence which has erupted in Loyalist areas in Northern Ireland over the weekend in protest against the Government's decision to phase out special category status for prisoners in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): During the weekend two persons died as a result of violence—of whom one was an electricity meter inspector who was fatally injured by a booby-trap explosion in an empty house—and 11 persons were injured. There was a great deal of hooliganism directed at deliberate disruption of life and wanton damage. Traffic was disrupted and roads blocked by hijacked vehicles. Over 80 vehicles were stolen—mainly in Belfast—and many of them, including buses, were set on fire. Bus services in the areas affected were suspended to prevent further damage. There were over 150 bomb scares of which the great majority were deliberate hoaxes. On Saturday a Dublin to Belfast train was held up by a hoax bomb and a further train was damaged by fire in a station. Government offices, schools and commercial premises were damaged by fire and churches were damaged by explosions. The brother of the Governor of Crumlin Road gaol was kidnapped and held for a time.
These senseless attacks were directed at the people of Northern Ireland. They were the ones who suffered disruption to to their lives. They will be the ones who will inevitably suffer when the cost of the considerable damage to property has to be found out of savings in money scheduled for other much-needed development in Northern Ireland. They are the ones to whom the criminals and the hooligans have to justify their actions. I should like to know how the injury of a four-year-old child will be justified by those responsible.
The security forces reacted promptly and decisively. Roads were quickly reopened, order was restored and already 19 arrests have been made. But what was the point of the violence and disruption? Terrorists claiming allegiance to both communities were responsible. There is no doubt that in many cases young people were being exploited for criminal purposes.
I understand that much of the violence is alleged to have been prompted by the Government decision to phase out from midnight last night the granting of special category status to criminals convicted of offences after that date. I must make it clear that those who murder and those who shoot, bomb and commit other crimes are criminals and will not get special treatment in future. I have explained to the House the Government's policy and I make clear again that this policy stands. Persons convicted of offences committed after midnight last night will not be granted special category status. The Government will not be blackmailed.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State agree that the vast majority of the incidents which he has cited were brought about by the activities of an organisation known as the UDA and that that organisation, while ostensibly protesting against the Government's decision to phase out special category status for prisoners, was also engaged in a show of strength to the Government, telling the Government that if they did not accept the Convention's Report, which will be debated at Stormont tomorrow, they would find themselves in direct confrontation with the UDA? Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement, which was issued no later than yesterday by prominent members of the


UUU Coalition, stating that, if the Govment rejected the UUUC Convention Report, the population—many of whom listen to its directives—will not allow themselves to be governed from this House?
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to ask all the people in Northern Ireland, and in particular parents, not to allow their sons or daughters to be involved from this date in the commission of acts of violence because under no circumstances will they be granted political status?

Mr. Rees: I have made it clear that with effect from midnight last night those who commit crimes will not be granted political status when they are sentenced. That is over. I agree with my hon. Friend that if people do not want to argue whether someone is special category status there is one simple way—do not commit crimes of murder. My hon. Friend was quite right in commenting on the number of children involved. In the riots a few weeks ago, a remarkable number of young children took part. A fortnight ago I saw children chucking stones who could not have been more than eight years old. Many brave people in Northern Ireland are hanging on to the coat-tails of young kids. That is what they have been doing this weekend.
My hon. Friend asked about the ending of the Convention. This House is responsible for Northern Ireland. If anyone thinks that he is simply taking me on when the Convention ends, he is mistaken—he is taking on this House and the Government. It is a curious version of loyalty even to argue in that way. We shall not be blackmailed. We are responsible for Northern Ireland and we shall govern Northern Ireland as we do the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Neave: Is the Secretary of State aware that he can count on the strongest support for standing firm in abolishing special category status for prisoners? Is he also aware that additional measures to secure order will have the strong support of the Opposition against all kinds of terrorism and damage? Who will pay for this damage? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ending of special category status is an essential step so that common thugs cannot be glamorised as political martyrs?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the Opposition's support on the question of special category status. I regard this as running parallel to the other steps that we are taking to achieve the primacy of the police. The rule of law is what matters. It has taken a long time, and there is a long journey ahead of us.
The hon. Gentleman asked who will pay for this. The money does not grow on trees. Over five years almost £170 million has been spent on re-erecting bombed buildings. The money for the burned buses will have to come from my budget for Northern Ireland. There is no other place from which it can come.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his policy of phasing out the mistaken political status has been fully supported by hon. Members on this Bench and that we expect it to be persisted in and carried forward as fast as cellular accommodation becomes available? Will he further agree that it is a blasphemy to attach the term "loyal" or "loyalist" to anyone who does not accept the law of the land or who expects different treatment for people who have been convicted of the same criminal offences?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has spoken for the UUUC at Westminster. Some people in Northern Ireland, who use the same title, speak in a different way. We know that it is the UUUC at Westminster that matters at Westminster. However, I wish that some people who use that name in Northern Ireland would remember that what they say is taken into account. Some of them say very funny things about what will happen later in the week. What the right hon. Gentleman has just said about loyalty is absolutely correct. There is only one meaning for it, and he always expresses it correctly. That is not always true of others who call themselves loyalists in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beith: Will the Secretary of State underline that what some of the so-called loyalists demand is special status for terrorist offences not yet committed? Is there any clearer indication that some in the UDA are quite determined to carry out terrorist offences in the future? What sort of loyalism is it to demand for terrorists conditions appropriate to


people fighting a war with the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has said it better than I could. What he says is absolutely right. Those people who are arguing at present are arguing in favour of those who have not yet committed crimes. As I said earlier, the quite simple way to avoid the argument is not to get involved in the butchery of Northern Ireland when man's inhumanity to man, to children in particular, goes on, and not to expect that at the end of it that will be designated as political. There is not an ounce of politics in the nature of all the crimes committed by one side or the other in Northern Ireland.

POST OFFICE SERVICES

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, that should have urgent consideration; namely
the Post Office service cuts announced on Friday night.
The matter is specific because the service reductions relate to three specific items, the main items being the closing on Saturday afternoons of post offices, and the discontinuance of Sunday collections, which will affect adversely the business community and the private citizen.
This matter is urgent because the cuts are due to start almost immediately but without correct or full prior consultation with statutory bodies and apparently without the knowledge of the Chairman of the Carter Committee, who certainly did not know about this two weeks ago.
The matter is of public importance because it affects us all. Cuts once made are seldom restored, and they should not be made in a vacuum when a review is taking place.
For those three reasons—of urgency, the specific nature of the matter, and its public importance—I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) for giving me notice that he intended to

make this application. The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
increased postal charges.

Mr. Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is "cuts in services".

Mr. Speaker: I shall read the hon. Member's letter. It is in respect of Post Office service cuts.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I wish to raise a complaint of privilege, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you due notice, arising out of a letter to the Northern Scot, a very important newspaper, of Saturday 28th February, which appears on page 8 of that newspaper.
This is the earliest opportunity at which I can raise this matter. I have given notice, in accordance with the courtesies of the House, to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), under whose hand the letter is written.
I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but if you wish I shall read the letter. Is that in accordance with your wishes, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. William Hamilton: Yes, please.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to give the digest.

Mr. William Hamilton: No, no. Let the hon. Lady read it, please.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need advice from only one source.

Mrs. Ewing: In accordance with your advice, Mr. Speaker, I shall follow the procedure that occurred when I was once


the victim of a breach of privilege and a digest of a letter only was given, in the interests of brevity.
The letter is certainly defamatory of me, but that is a matter for another place and will follow in due course. However, in my view it interferes with the proper execution of my duties as a Member and, therefore, falls within the umbrella of the Committee of Privileges, for the following reasons.
There is an allegation that I failed to participate in a debate on the fishing industry of the EEC. It is known that I have taken part in every other one and it was known where I was at the time of this particular debate. We all know that Members cannot be in two places at once and that Members of Parliament, particularly of parties of one, cannot man a Bench for 24 hours a day. However, apart from that first matter, the innuendo about which I complain is that
This gross dereliction of duty by Mrs. Ewing becomes all the more indefensible taken in conjunction with the fact that on that same day she had spoken in defence of her own profession—the lawyers.
Then, later in the letter,
She is not paid handsomely to be absent—nor, I submit, to represent the views of lawyers rather than fishermen.
It is a matter of record—and I have with me the official record of the debate in the EEC Parliament—that I made no speech whatsoever in the defence of lawyers. If Hansard is impugned in its accuracy, while allowing for political poetic licence, to which we are all very accustomed as seasoned Members, nevertheless to be involved in a defamatory remark about a non-existent speech which has not even taken place seems to me to go beyond the bounds of protection of a Member's public record.
The second point of privilege in the letter is the reference to handsome payment, both to the hon. Member for Fife, Central and to myself. I would point out that this, again, is a misstatement of the public record because it is a fact that we are not paid a salary at all—as the hon. Member for Fife, Central well knows—but we are allowed to claim expenses—which we have just been duly warned by the Inland Revenue have to be entirely justified. They are, therefore, expenses which are claimable and have to be justified. Once again, therefore, the

public nature of my office has been brought into disrepute, and inaccurately.
I have a legal hurdle to overcome, which I shall put briefly to the House. It is this. I am suggesting that as nominees of this House, which the United Kingdom delegation at present is, we were hired by this House—we could be fired by this House—and our nominations all had to be approved by the House. Until the day of direct elections to the EEC comes, I am suggesting that the writ of the Committee of Privileges should extend to such breaches of conduct between one Member of the United Kingdom delegation and another in the course of their duties as nominees.
That may be the first time that that point has been put, but I put it without hesitation because the rules of privilege of this House are elderly and I am certain that both English and Scots law are adaptable enough to bring them up to terms with the new situation. We do not have a proper set of rules to protect us in the EEC Parliament. By a strange irony of fate we are waiting until the chairman newly appointed for this purpose advises—and the name of the chairman is that of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. Until he has set up rules to protect me against such contempt, I must surely look to this House for some protection.
The fact is that I have been accused in an inaccurate record relating to, I would suggest, an extension of responsibility, which affects me as a nominee of this House.
There must surely be some protection against such damaging statements which prevent delegates from properly exercising their duties.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order under privilege, and I have been asked to rule. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) will bring the newspaper to the Table.
Newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she was going to raise this matter. I did not know the contents of her complaint. I shall


consider it carefully and rule on the matter tomorrow.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will give very sympathetic consideration to this matter. I should very much like it to be taken to the Committee of Privileges, because there is a very interesting story to tell here and it is important to get it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may well be interesting but that I shall find out. I shall be ruling on the matter tomorrow.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the copy of the letter which has not been read out to the House, but to which the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has referred, be placed on the Table, Mr. Speaker, so that hon. Members may see it? I do not recollect a previous case in which the letter complained of has not been read out to the House. As it is, the hon. Lady has put forward her comments on a letter by another Member without hon. Members being put in a position of knowing what was in the letter. I find this very distasteful. Therefore, as the hon. Lady has not specifically placed a copy of the letter on the Table, as opposed to giving you a copy, Mr. Speaker, would you please order that she lays a copy of the letter on the Table—and the full letter and not a summarised version—concerning which she has thought it right to complain, bearing in mind that she has commented at such length on a document which is not available to all hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a master of procedure in the House. The fault was mine. I should have allowed the hon. Lady to go

on and to read the whole of the letter. I shall now ask the Clerk of the House to read the letter.

Mr. William Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Clerk of the House: The Clerk of the House read the letter, which was as follows:
For a long time Mrs. W. Ewing has publicly criticised the fisheries policy of both the United Kingdom and the EEC. Recently she criticised the European Commissioner responsible for these matters—in the House of Commons.
Yet on Thursday, February 12, when there was a long debate in the European Parliament on the fishing industry, Mrs. Ewing was absent from it. The only Scottish MPs who spoke were Mr. Alex Fletcher, the Tory Member for Edinburgh North, and myself.
This gross dereliction of duty by Mrs. Ewing becomes all the more indefensible taken in conjunction with the fact that on that same day she had spoken in defence of her own profession—the lawyers.
Like me, Mrs. Ewing is very well paid to look after Scottish affairs in Europe—even though her own Party was vehement in opposing British membership of the Common Market.
She is not paid handsomely to be absent—nor, I submit, to represent the views of lawyers rather than fishermen. There was a grave dereliction of duty by Mrs. Ewing which should not go unnoticed in Moray and Nairn.—Yours etc.,

W. W. HAMILTON,

MP for Central Fife."

Mr. Speaker: I shall give my ruling tomorrow.

LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Land Drainage (Amendment) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 p.m.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a somewhat unusual experience to stand at this Dispatch Box and commend a Bill to the House on a free vote, and no doubt many hon. Members would like this to happen more often. This is a special Bill which would give effect to a policy which has had the support of successive Governments but which touches on a question which this House has always, rightly, considered to be of the highest importance—the duty of the State with respect to the liberty of the individual. That is why we have felt it right to submit our proposals to a free vote of the House.
This is a day for which I have eagerly waited, and I am particularly encouraged by the support from all quarters of the House for the Early-Day Motion recently tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and others. The terms of that motion remind us forcefully of the hard truth that underlies our debate today. On the outcome of this debate and the vote that will follow it the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens will depend.
Although this is the first opportunity which the House has had to express its view on the question, it has been with us for a number of years. A similar clause was moved by Lord Montague, supported by Lord Avebury and Lord Davies of Leek, at the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill introduced in 1973 by the Conservative Administration. That Bill was lost with the dissolution of Parliament in February 1974. It was reintroduced in the Lords in similar form, including a clause on seat belts, in May 1974 by the last Labour Administration. On a close vote at Report stage in the Lords, the seat belt clause was removed. At Committee stage in the Commons, the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare

(Mr. Wiggin) and Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) moved its reinstatement, but this was defeated overwhelmingly on Government advice that it was not appropriate to introduce such a controversial measure on a Friday afternoon and that the passage of the Bill might be jeopardised.
The provision was reintroduced as a separate Bill in the new Parliament, but the debate on the Second Reading in the Commons on 21st November 1974 was adjourned at 10 p.m. without a Division. My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Transport and the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) had spoken, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) was addressing the House at the time. Unfortunately, it proved impossible to find time for the completion of that Second Reading debate in the last Session. Consequently, the House is today invited to commence its consideration of the proposition afresh.
There is, however, nothing new in the idea of seat belt-wearing, nor is there anything revolutionary in the idea that wearing should be mandatory for all drivers and front-seat passengers. It has long been recognised that there is a need to give better protection to car occupants who are relatively extremely vulnerable as cars are involved in one-third as many accidents as buses and five times as many deaths occur for every occupant-mile.
Among those instruments which have been tested, air bags, crushable internal structures, lap belts and three-point belts were all under experiment in this country and abroad and three-point belts have been found to be the most effective. In 1967 their value was evident and the decision to introduce compulsory fitting of belts to new cars under Construction and Use Regulations was taken. This was later extended to all post-1965 cars.
Consideration was given at an early stage to whether the wearing as distinct from the installation of belts should be made compulsory. No other country had tried this, so those responsible for road safety decided to try public education and persuasion, first through advertising. The advertising more than paid for itself in casualties saved, increasing the wearing rate to the present average of just over 30 per cent. and to 40 per cent. for


private cars on motorways, where, ironically, driving is safer. However, because the funds available for advertising were limited, and because the experience in other countries confirmed the research work which had been done here, the pressure to make wearing compulsory continued.
The Bill is, in reality, a brief enabling Bill of two clauses. With the exception of the omission of the former Clause 2(2) for technical reasons, the present Bill is in precisely the same terms as the Bill which was introduced in 1974.

Clause 2 will not, I suspect, detain the House long. Subsection (1) provides the Short Title of the Bill, and subsection (2) provides that the Bill shall not apply to Northern Ireland, to which the Road Traffic Act 1972 similarly does not extend and which has a separate body of road traffic law from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Clause 1(2) provides the penalty for failing to comply with any Regulations made under the clause, namely, a maximum fine of £50 on summary conviction, which is the same as that for motor cyclists who fail to wear safety helmets. The offence is not endorsable and is not subject to disqualification.

Clause 1(1) is the heart of the Bill. It inserts in Part I of the 1972 Act a new Section 33A to enable the Secretary of State to make Regulations requiring the wearing of seat belts of such a type as may be prescribed. There is also provision to make appropriate exemptions from this requirement for different classes of vehicle, persons and circumstances and to prescribe conditions in which these exemptions will apply. I shall come in a moment to the types of exemption which I have in mind later to recommend to the House.

I assure the House that my intention will be to make Regulations under these powers, if granted, to require the wearing of seat belts only where they are already fitted. I emphasise that point. The intention is that they will relate only to types of belt required to be fitted already in Construction and Use Regulations under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. As hon. Members will know, the present requirement to fit belts extends to motor cars registered since 1st January

1965, light vans of up to 30 cwt. registered since 1st April 1967, and certain three-wheeled vehicles first used on or after 1st September 1970—that is to say those specified under Regulation 17 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973.

There is thus no question whatever of anyone committing an offence when driving an elderly vehicle to which the fitting of belts is neither mandatory nor practicable. Our estimate is that some 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of cars and small vans are already fitted with belts, and, of course, this proportion will rise with the passage of time.

I need hardly say that Regulations made under the new Section 33A will be subject to the normal statutory consultation with representative organisations and the negative resolution procedure prescribed in Section 199 of the 1972 Act. I envisage that they will be modified from time to time in the light of experience and of technical developments.

I turn now to the question of exemptions. I know that concern has been expressed that these should run as widely as possible. On the other hand, it could be argued that to keep the number of exemptions to an essential minimum will be desirable so as to keep the law as simple as possible. I have a very open mind on this subject. I am ready to consider any reasonable grounds for exemption, and I take as my starting point the list put forward by my right hon. Friend my predecessor in office in November 1974, namely, driving in reverse, local delivery and collection services, small children, medical cases, taxi drivers and those physically unable either to fasten a belt or to reach the central controls if they do so.

I shall be very ready to be guided by the medical profession regarding exemptions appropriate on medical grounds, and I have no doubt that we shall discuss these matters in detail in Committee if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading today.

Mr. Walter Clegg: How will the exemptions work? Will those entitled to an exemption be given a certificate, or will they, in defending themselves in court, have to try to bring themselves under an exemption?

Dr. Gilbert: These would all be matters for discussion when we carry out the consultation, but I envisage, for example, that where it is an obvious case of a delivery vehicle there will be no need for a certificate. Again, when someone is driving in reverse, it being a simple matter of observation, the same would be true. For cases on medical grounds, I envisage that people would obtain for themselves medical certificates of exemption.
The fundamental justification for the Bill reposes in the number of deaths and serious injuries which we estimate will be saved by its enactment. I think that it may be helpful for to the House if, before I go into detail, I set out the basis on which our calculations are made. Surveys of seat belt-wearing carried out by the Department of the Environment show that belts are worn for about one-third of the distance travelled in the front seats of cars. Thus, for every mile travelled belted, about two miles are travelled unbelted.
If belt-wearing made no difference, we could expect to find one belted person killed or injured for every two unbelted persons killed or injured, since this is the proportion in which they are exposed to the risk of accident. But we know from police reports whether people killed or injured in the front seats of cars were or were not wearing belts, and we find that serious injuries among belted people are only about half the number which this reasoning would lead us to expect, and deaths are a little less than half. I have simplified the argument, and it makes certain assumptions—in particular, that belted and unbelted travellers are equally at risk of accident.
If that were the only evidence that seat belts save lives and serious injury, we should, of course, be right to treat the evidence with caution. But it is not the only evidence. Apart from experience in Australia, on which I shall give the House some figures in a minute, the French authorities have calculated the savings from compulsory belt-wearing on a method quite different from ours and have reached almost exactly the same conclusions. Moreover, the calculations on the British figures have now been carried out in respect of 1972, 1973 and 1974 and they give closely corresponding results for the reduction in risk of injury

conferred by belt-wearing, despite the increase in the proportion of belts actually worn and the change in accident patterns due to the fuel crisis.
Thus, our estimate is that by wearing a seat belt anyone riding in the front seat of a car reduces by at least half the chance that he or she will be killed or seriously injured in an accident.
I emphasise that that is not the opinion of my Department alone or of any single group of experts but is the corroborated conclusion of many careful studies in several countries. It is really no longer debatable, and if those figures are accepted the figures for expected savings in this country which I am about to give follow as night follows day.
We estimate that if the wearing rate rises from its present level of just over 30 per cent. to 90 per cent. in vehicles which are fitted with belts, which is not an unreasonable objective in the light of other countries' experience, we should prevent 1,000 deaths and about 11,000 serious injuries every year—a serious injury being defined as an injury for which the victim has a stay in hospital or suffers a broken limb. Moreover, according to the somewhat gruesome statistics which we are compelled to work on in the Department, we should save some £60 million a year in health service costs, police time and production lost to the national economy.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I think it more than a quibble to invite the hon. Gentleman to accept that, when he refers to a saving of £60 million in the National Health Service, he really means that £60 million-worth of resources would be differently expended within the National Health Service.

Dr. Gilbert: I think that the right hon. Gentleman did not quite follow what I was saying. The figure of £60 million which I gave embraces not only the National Health Service but lost production and police costs. However, I have no quarrel with the principle which the right hon. Gentleman adumbrates. I accept that.
I can think of no other measure which would produce such a reduction of human misery and pain at no cost but, rather, a saving or reallocation of—

Mr. Clement Freud: If smoking were banned by Parliament, the


saving to the National Health Service would be immeasurably higher, would it not?

Dr. Gilbert: There would also be considerable loss to the public purse. But I think that this raises questions of enforcement and of civil liberties, to which I shall come in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
That, basically, is the case for the Bill. What are the objections to it?

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Minister gives statistics and extrapolates them in terms of injuries and deaths. Will he at least put on record the answer which he gave me on 3rd February showing the number of people who died because they were wearing a seat belt?

Dr. Gilbert: I cannot recall offhand that anyone has died as the result of wearing a seat belt, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I was coming to it, but I am happy that he made the point then.
The objections to the Bill fall into four main categories: concern about the design of bells, concern about the alleged dangers of being trapped in a car, concern about enforcement, and concern about the issue of personal freedom. I shall address myself to those objections consecutively.
First, as regards the design of seat belts, the argument has been made that some existing seat belts are uncomfortable, difficult to adjust or even dangerous, and that legislation for compulsory wearing should be deferred until these problems have been resolved. It is true that a small number of older seat belts still in use suffer from some of these disadvantages, but in my view this is insufficient reason to defer compulsory wearing.
Thanks to improvements in the design and installation of belts that have been made over the last few years, the vast majority of current seat belts are now both comfortable and convenient to use. However, there is always room for improvement, and in the near future I intend to discuss with seat belt manufacturers possible ways in which improvements might be made.
I am particularly interested in the possibility of a requirement for standardised

fastenings—a subject which has been urged upon me by the Automobile Association, whose support I greatly welcome in this matter. An EEC directive now in draft includes provisions for the standardisation of buckles, and I shall consider whether to adopt these provisions when an agreed directive is available.
I turn now to the very emotive subject of the danger of being trapped in a car in an accident, particularly where a car may catch fire or there is a possibility of drowning. In most cases it is far easier to get out of a car that has been involved in an accident if one has not been concussed first. One of the great benefits of wearing a seat belt is that it prevents the forehead, the temple, from striking the windscreen in front, and it makes it much more likely that one will, for a given condition of a car after impact, be able to get out of that vehicle.
The vast majority of serious accidents are as a result of head-on impact. It is often, alas, the case that one cannot get out of a car after being involved in a collision, but this is true whether one is wearing a seat belt or not. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory, in its intensive study of 2,000 accidents, found no evidence that the wearing of seat belts ever reduced one's chances of survival or getting out of a car that had been involved in an accident.
Turning to enforcement, the question whether the law will be widely disregarded has often been raised. How can it be policed? How can it be checked? How can non-wearing be proved? Will it not result in damage to relations between the police and the public? All I can say is that experience in other countries and surveys in this country indicate that this law would be generally obeyed, with wearing rates in excess of 80 per cent. sustained in the countries where it has been introduced, without—I emphasise this—any exceptional enforcement effort beyond normal traffic duties.
I do not, of course, expect 100 per cent. success from the passage of the Bill. I should be happy with a wearing rate of 80 per cent. and I should expect to see a wearing rate in this country of something over 90 per cent. With so much at stake, we should have to pause very long before deciding not to accept that as an acceptable level of enforcement for legislation of this sort.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask whether he means 90 per cent. of those obliged by law to wear belts or 90 per cent. of the total driving population, that total including those who are exempted?

Dr. Gilbert: I meant the former.
I refer now to the question of freedom. I would not attempt to conceal from the House that this proposal involves a reduction in individual liberty. It is, in my view, a very modest reduction, but it is a reduction none the less. But I am quite clear that it is in no way a precedent.
It is many years now since this House first enacted legislation making it mandatory on people to wear protective clothing at work, protective shoes, protective boots, protective shields, protective helmets and protective asbestos clothing in certain circumstances. There are many precedents, going back a great many years, where the State has said that it saw fit to reduce the individual's freedom in a modest respect in order to enhance the individual's safety.
There is the precedent—I know that it is not welcome in all parts of the House—in road traffic law of the enactment a few years ago of compulsory protective headgear for all motor cyclists.

Mr. Keith Speed: On that point, there is a difference between this proposal and the law concerning the wearing of safety helmets by motor cyclists, in that there is clear evidence in certain cases—indeed, in my own family—that, if one is belted up and involved particularly in a collision from the rear, one maintains control of the vehicle and thereby may not run into either pedestrians or motorists, so that third parties and not only the occupants of the car are less involved.

Dr. Gilbert: I was intending to make that point. It was made in a couple of very thoughtful letters in The Times on Saturday by a distinguished medical personage, Dr. Havard, and by another correspondent. It is not just a question of one's own safety that is involved. If one is wearing a seat belt when involved in an accident, one's ability to control a vehicle is enhanced. I am much

obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
I do not normally like to pray in aid opinions in the Press in support of my arguments—an argument should stand or fall on its own two feet—but it is noteworthy that no less a range of public journals than The Times, the Daily Mail. The Guardian, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times and the Daily Express have all in the last few days—and they are all vigilant defender.; of the liberty of the individual—come forward with articles supporting the Bill.

Mr. David Crouch: My point concerns the liberty and freedom of the individual where a person feels that his safety might be put in jeopardy by wearing a belt. This could well be because of the fixing of the belt. It might be suitable for a person of my size, 6 ft. 2 in., but unsuitable for my wife, who is 5 ft. 5 in., so that the crossover part comes across her throat. Would such a person have any liberty under the Bill, so devised, to wait until the belt has been re-set and adjusted?

Dr. Gilbert: I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. One of the categories of exclusion that I mentioned—I am choosing my words with care in paraphrasing what I said earlier—is where it is physically impossible for the occupant to wear the belt. That takes care of people who are very short or of people who are excessively obese and who may have difficulties in getting belts to fit them.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: What about the limbless, such as myself? I never use a belt, for the very simple reason that it would have to be fixed in the jamb down on the floor between us by the person next to me. It is very difficult to release it, and I should find myself trapped in those circumstances in an accident. Will the limbless be taken care of as a special category?

Dr. Gilbert: I have no difficulty in giving the hon. and learned Gentleman the sort of assurance he seeks. As he will be aware, when it was made mandatory for seat belts to be fixed in tricycles there was a specific wording in the Regulations to exclude the invalid tricycle, simply because of the difficulty


that the disabled would have in strapping themselves into their belts and in releasing them.
As I said earlier, we are not dependent only on theoretical research in this country. We can actually see what has happened with the enactment of similar legislation elsewhere. In Australia, where the wearing rate approached 75 per cent. in the first year of compulsion—it has since risen considerably higher—there was a reduction of 17 per cent. in the deaths of vehicle occupants and of about 6·5 per cent. in injuries during the same period. In New Zealand the number of fatal accidents to car occupants remained static while those to other road users rose by 44 per cent. In France it is estimated that compulsory wearing saved about 1,200 lives during 1974 when it applied only on rural roads, and I understand that the French intend to change that in the near future even though at first the law was poorly enforced. The evidence from all these countries confirms the calculation that the wearing of seat belts prevents 50 per cent. of serious injuries to front-seat vehicle occupants and more than 50 per cent. of deaths.
The compulsory wearing of seat belts was first enforced by law in the State of Victoria. It was soon adopted by the other Australian States and by New Zealand and has since spread to many other countries. It is now in force or in the course of implementation in Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany in Europe alone. In many of these countries the same fears were expressed as have been heard here. Many of them have just as strong a libertarian tradition—in Australia, for example—as we have here. As far as I am aware, in none of them is there any great desire to turn back the clock and repeal the legislation.
Thus, we are not about to engage in any revolutionary new social experiment. We are not blazing a trail through uncharted territory. We know the experience of others. It is not a case of our being the first in the field. We are very much in danger of being the last.
Of all the arguments against this proposal, in my view the libertarian one

is the most powerful. But, as I have said, in my view the benefits far outweigh the costs of this really quite marginal reduction in personal liberty. This, of course, is an issue that every hon. Member will have to weigh for himself or herself. However, I should like to address a special appeal to those hon. Members who feel that the wearing of belts is prudent in itself but who shrink from making it compulsory. If we were to adopt that attitude to the Bill, I am sure that the public would conclude that we had spoken against the wearing of belts as such, that wearing rates would fall and that casualty rates would climb.
Since this measure was first proposed to Parliament in 1973, more than 2,000 people have died and 20,000 have been seriously injured in this country because they did not wear their seat belts. The time for decision has at last arrived. I implore hon. Members to be mindful of tomorrow's victims when they cast their votes tonight.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: As with the Government, there is a free vote on this side of the House, and rightly so. It is an issue where on both sides of the argument there are strongly and sincerely held views. Let me make it clear that in this debate I shall be expressing my personal views. Although I shall vote against the Bill, it is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who was Minister for Transport Industries in the last Conservative Government, supported legislation to make seat belts compulsory and still remains very firmly of that view.
There are important and fundamental issues at stake in this Bill. But let us first seek the areas on which there is agreement. I hope that we can all agree that the wearing of seat belts makes sense. They do not prevent accidents, but in my view there is no question that the wearing of seat belts reduces substantially the chances of injury or death from accidents. So I hope that, contrary to what the Minister said, it will be recognised, especially outside this House, that nothing said in this debate challenges the basic fact that seat belts save lives and prevent injuries.
I hope that we can also agree that, regardless of whether this Bill becomes


law, Government efforts to encourage the proper use of seat belts should continue. This should include further work on better designed seat belts, because I am sure that one of the reasons why motorists do not always wear their belts is that so many cars still have belts which require enormous effort to adjust and fix.
Although I am sure the Minister will agree that, even if the wearing of belts is made compulsory, one of the biggest problems remaining will be to persuade the motorist to wear his belt properly, the 1973 survey of the Australian Department of Transport is significant. It showed that, even after compulsion, only 11 per cent. of motorists were wearing their belts correctly adjusted and buckled. I accept that that is better than no protection at all, but it shows that the passing of an Act is not the end of the road.
I also hope that we can agree on the seriousness of the road casualty position and the human tragedies which lie behind the figures. I remember more than 10 years ago being called late at night to the intensive care unit of a hospital in Essex. There were four patients in the unit. Three were young men in their late teens or early twenties. All three had been unconscious for some time. All three had serious head injuries involving motor cycle or motor car accidents. In all three cases they would either die or face a bleak and cruelly limited future. That is the reality that lies behind this debate.
I understand the position of those who say that that is an end to the argument. I understand it, but I do not support it. I think that we should ask further questions. We should ask whether this proposed rule is a suitable subject for the criminal law. We should ask whether as law it is capable of being enforced and, if so, at what price. These are important questions, but they are most difficult to ask when the legislation proposed seeks to meet an aim which is generally approved, such as the reduction of road injuries. Nevertheless I still argue that the quality of law passed by this House should match our good intentions.
Let us first examine the detail of the Bill. As it happens, it does not take very long to do that, because the Bill is

concerned basically with delegating powers to the Secretary of State. We know that the Secretary of State may make Regulations on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, and we know that these Regulations are subject to exceptions. But we do not know what the exceptions are. We know that the Regulations can affect different classes of vehicles and different descriptions of people and take account of different circumstances. But again we know nothing of the details. In short, all we are told is that the driver who contravenes the rules, whatever they are and whoever they apply to, shall be guilty of an offence subject to a fine of up to £50. The detail comes later in the Statutory Instruments to be presented by the Secretary of Slate.
I suggest that the difficulties here are of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is a House of Commons question rather than a party question. Some of the difficulties of this procedure were shown by the crash helmets legislation. Not only was it difficult to get a debate at all but, once obtained, it was impossible to change the proposals. The House was left with the choice of accepting or rejecting the Statutory Instrument but not of amending it. That is a characteristic of the Statutory Instrument approach.
I suggest that that led to a real difficulty. On that occasion, the Statutory Instrument laid down that every person riding a motor cycle should wear a crash helmet, subject to the rather curious exception that the Regulation did not apply to
… any person driving or riding on a motor cycle if it is a mowing machine.
Being reasonable men and women, right hon. and hon. Members readily agreed to that exception, although I am not sure that many of us understood in what circumstances a motor cycle was a mowing machine. But the crucial point that I make is that, although we had that side issue before us, there was no debate on the much bigger issue of whether Sikhs should wear helmets, for example, for the very good reason that there was no point in debating it since all that could be done in such circumstances was to reject the entire Statutory Instrument. An exception which some of us might have supported to cover the Sikhs' position could not be inserted at that stage.
Surely we should learn from that experience. The question of exceptions to this legislation will clearly be of fundamental importance. I mention but one example—the position of the police. In most circumstances, they wear seat belts, but they do not when, for example, escorting a prisoner. It is not difficult to think of a range of other service situations where a seat belt would be a hindrance rather than a help. Another example is what the hon. Member for Newham, Northwest (Mr. Lewis), whose absence today I regret, referred to as the problem of the man who is "a little obese." The hon. Gentleman was rudely interrupted by the closure of the debate in November 1974 when he was about to address himself to that problem.
I emphasise "November 1974" because it is right to remind ourselves that the seat belt proposal has been with us for several years. The last debate stood adjourned 14 months ago. We must ask why the Government have not carried out their consultations with interested parties in the meantime and put their proposals into the Bill so that they could be fully debated and examined by Parliament and, if it was so decided, amended by Parliament.
Clearly if the Bill goes through the House will want assurances that the eventual Statutory Instruments will be fully debated. However, even with that assurance it will do nothing to correct the inherent fault in the procedure. Therefore, my first criticism is that this is an unsatisfactory way of proceeding on what we are all agreed is an important subject.
My second question is whether this proposed requirement is a proper subject for the criminal law. As a general rule we make criminal only that conduct which affects the rights of other members of society. There are exceptions to this to which I shall refer, but as a general rule the criminal law does not intervene when the individual is harming himself. For example, it is not an offence to attempt suicide.
Personally I do not take an absolute view that the criminal law should be concerned only when other people's individual rights are affected. I recognise that the drugs law, for example, can be argued on the basis that if we allowed drug taking it would encourage crime, thus harming other individuals. However, I

am bound to say that in my view there is at any rate an element of preventing the individual from harming himself. Of course, as the Minister has fairly said, that is the whole basis of the crash helmet legislation.
I would argue a much more limited proposition—namely, that the presumption must be against the criminal law punishing actions which harm only the individual himself and that that presumption is shifted only in the most exceptional circumstances. Here I would distinguish between crash helmet and seat belt law. It is a fact that in a small number of cases compliance with the law will lead to harm which might otherwise have been avoided. I would readily concede that the number of cases involved here is small. Nevertheless, it is by those exceptional cases that the criminal law tends to be judged to see whether it is fair.
When the Minister was asked about such cases he rather grandly dismissed the evidence as "anecdotal". It is fair to put to him that at least one of the anecdotes came from his predecessor when he was Minister for Transport. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) who in the November 1974 debate described how he was thrown clear after driving a motor cycle at 70 miles per hour into a lorry travelling at the same speed in the opposite direction. His summing up of the position, which I would regard as fair, was as follows:
There are people who genuinely feel that it is more dangerous to wear a seat belt than not to wear one. One readily concedes that there have been a few isolated cases in which it might have been better if a seat belt had not been worn. Such cases are extremely rare."—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1646.]
In my view that is a fair summary of the position. It is not an argument for the public not wearing seat belts, because the balance of probabilities is heavily that seat belts will prevent injury. However, it is in my view, an argument for not getting the criminal law involved. For if one seeks to get the criminal law to enforce the wearing of seat belts generally for all, one also has to face the prospect that in some cases, albeit few in number, compliance with that law will be seen to have harmed the man who is obeying it. That is not in my view a position that we should readily get into.
Those are my two criticisms of the Bill. I fully accept that some of my hon. Friends and some other hon. Gentlemen will take the view that even given those two points both arguments are outweighed by experience abroad and the results that have been achieved there by compulsion.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if someone is killed in a motor accident, in many cases other people are affected and injured? For instance, if the parent of some young children was killed, his or her death would injuriously affect other people.

Mr. Fowler: I am not disputing that that is so. I was making the point that in some exceptional cases compliance with the law would lead to injury to the person who actually complied with the law. That was the point that I was making rather than the point which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) made.

Mr. Michael Ward: The hon. Gentleman has said that my right hon. Friend the Minister has dismissed some cases as being anecdotal instances of such injuries where the belt has been worn. Can the hon. Gentleman give us a single reliable example where the evidence firmly establishes that injuries have occurred as a result of the seat belt being worn? Many of us have scoured all sources to find such a case, but without success.

Mr. Fowler: I thought that by quoting the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, who was previously the Minister for Transport, I had dealt with that point. He said that there were isolated cases. However, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will be intervening in this debate at a latter stage to give an example exactly along that line. As the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) has raised this matter I shall put to him an experience of my own some years ago when I was on the staff of The Times. At that time there was a case where if the reporter concerned had been wearing a seat belt she would have been injured. She was thrown clear of the car when it overturned. That point was made in a letter to The Times today.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: During his opening speech the Minister did not deal with the question of accidents that take place when a vehicle is hit from the side. Nor, indeed, has my hon. Friend dealt with this matter. The Minister dealt with head-on collisions and collisions from behind. However, I should like to point out that my mother-in-law was travelling in the front passenger seat of a car going round Hyde Park Corner a year or two ago. Her car was hit from the side by a taxi. My mother-in-law, who had seen the taxi coming, with an alacrity that is not always native to mothers-in-law, succeeded in leaping sideways and avoiding what would otherwise have been a very serious accident and very serious injuries.
I hope that the Minister will tell us his view of the large number of accidents that take place from the side and his view of the position of people who are frightened, not perhaps of negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the driver leading to a head-on collision, but of being hit from the side.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I readily concede that the alternative approach which must rest upon the individual motorist voluntarily taking action which is clearly in his own interest, does not have the apparent guarantee of success offered by supporters of the Bill. However, it is worth pointing out some features of a voluntary policy.
There is the action that can be taken by mechanical warning devices to warn the motorist that he is not wearing his belt. I do not think this matter was dealt with by the Minister. Such devices—either lights or buzzers or even ignition devices—are already fitted on some cars. Both British Leyland and Volvo tell me that the cost of fitting such devices to the new car is negligible—perhaps a pound or two. I recognise that that does not affect existing cars unless conversions are carried out. I also recognise that some devices can be defeated by buckling the belt behind the seat. However, let us not imagine for a moment that even with the law we shall be able to defeat the motorist who wants to drive with, for example, his belt over his shoulder but not clipped in. We must realistically


recognise that there is some limit to what we can do.
Of course, we now have the added argument—this point was not mentioned by the Minister—of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Froom and Butcher which was given last July and since the House last debated this matter. This case involved a civil action for damages. The court ruled that damages would be reduced where the person involved was not wearing his seat belt and where such an omission had an effect on the injuries inflicted. If, however, the omission did not have an effect, equally clearly the damages were unaffected.
In other words, flexibility is achieved but notice is served on the motorist that if he drives without a seat belt he may lose both physically and financially.
The message that wearing a seat belt makes sense is heavily underlined. As Lord Denning said on that occasion—
Everyone is free to wear a seat belt or not, as he pleases…He can do it if he likes without being punished by the law. But it is not a sensible thing to do.
If he does it, it is his own fault and he has only himself to thank for the consequences.
Those are words which might be used with effect in any future advertising campaign.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my hon. Friend comment on the position of the 40 per cent. of car owners who have third party only insurance? How could reduced damages awarded by courts be expected to influence that 40 per cent.?

Mr. Fowler: The point I was making was that it is an added encouragement to wearing seat belts, for people to take proper care for their own safety. I do not claim that it will cover every situation.
In many ways I find that the deciding point in this argument is the question of enforcement. There is a comforting assumption that somehow enforcement will take care of itself—a view shared more or less by the Minister and certainly by The Times, which managed to produce a leader today without mentioning the question of enforcement.
This has not always been the view. It would have been possible to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory when it

became compulsory to fit belts. Indeed, the point was put to the then Minister for Transport in 1967, and according to The Times of 23rd March 1967
Mrs. Castle, Minister of Transport, said yesterday that she did not propose to compel motorists in Britain to wear safety belts, because of the difficulty of enforcement.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with the right hon. Lady the Member for Black-bum (Mrs. Castle); and if that does not convince the public that this is a nonparty occasion, nothing will.

Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will be in the Aye Lobby tonight.

Mr. Fowler: I would be interested to know on what basis the right hon. Lady will be in the Aye Lobby. I am sorry to hear that on the one occasion when I thought that I would be able to agree with the right hon. Lady, I gather that in fact I am not to be able to agree with her.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the private wing of the Aye Lobby.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is taking us on to another debate which I gather is coming shortly.
In any event, views have changed since then. In our last debate the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, said that no one wanted to see the law enforced
in a serious regular way."—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1645.]
He said that the law would be checked in the same way as the police checked whether a driver has a licence or an insurance certificate.
The Department of the Environment was wrong in both respects. The proper comparison is with speed checks, where the police have no option but to enforce the law in a serious regular way. The police can operate only on the assumption that when Parliament passes a criminal law it requires it to be enforced. The policeman will assume that we have not forgotten the reason why an organised police force developed in this country, namely, that the passing of laws did not mean that they were automatically observed. For the criminal law to be observed it has to be enforced.
Nor do I believe that it is realistic to think that seat belt law will be enforced only as a kind of bonus, that when a motorist is stopped by the police for speeding the police will check whether he is wearing his seat belt. That is not the basis on which the police will work, and the logic of it is that if a motorist is not speeding or committing some other road offence he will not be stopped.
Evidence from abroad on this point of enforcement is sketchy, but The Australian newspaper was good enough last week to make inquiries for me. Its report was that apprehension for not wearing a seat belt is considered by the Australian public to be "a very real possibility". I was then given some statistics which, unfortunately, do not distinguish between people charged with the offence alone and those charged with a combination of offences, but the newspaper reports that in New South Wales, in the first nine months of 1973, 24,000 people were cited for seat belt offences.
Therefore, we have to recognise that the law will have to be enforced. Indeed, I can see no other alternative if the Government intend to reach their aim, reiterated by the Minister today, of 90 per cent. of the public wearing belts.
We also have to recognise that this causes concern outside the House. The Magistrates Association is concerned about the extra pressure enforcement will put on the courts, already two-thirds occupied with traffic offences, while many policemen are rightly concerned about the difficulties of enforcement and the possible effect this could have on their relations with the public.
Here again, there is an important distinction between crash helmets and seat belts. Whatever our views, we can agree that the crash helmet law is easily enforced, but not so with seat belts. There is the general difficulty of spotting whether a driver has his seat belt on. There are practically impossible enforcement situations like enforcement at night. There are very difficult enforcement situations such as enforcement on motorways.
It is my argument that these special difficulties should be taken into account, because it is those laws which are most difficult to enforce which most easily

lead to conflict with the public. As the 1962 Royal Commission on the police pointed out, nothing is more important in relations between police and public than relations between police and motorist.
Doubtless some will ask, what is so special about Britain in this respect? Over the past three years I have studied on the ground the police in Europe, and particularly in Germany, France and Holland. In all those countries the British police are seen as special, not because they are better equipped, not because they are better paid, but because of the relationship which exists here between the police and the public, which is better than anywhere else in Europe.
At least in part that relationship has been achieved by adopting a deliberately cautious policy in the traffic area. We have taken care with the jobs we have asked the police to undertake and we actually have adopted different policies from other countries even when those policies can be argued as more effective. In this country we do not have spot checks on drink driving. Other countries do. We do not have a separate traffic corps, which would be easier to recruit and mean a bigger presence on the roads. Other countries do. Since the 1962 Royal Commission we have regarded the area of relations between police and motorist as of special difficulty and I do not believe that we should forget that lesson today.
So I quite accept that not all hon. Members will put the same value on the police, or for that matter the criminal law. I regard both areas as of crucial importance. I strongly support the wearing of seat belts. If the House votes for such a law, I will accept that and seek to improve the legislation, but on the principle itself I shall vote against the Bill.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made a regrettable speech and failed to rise to the occasion. We are faced with a very grave situation. The hon. Gentleman spoke against the Bill but failed to provide a viable alternative. He advanced the kind of argument that can be advanced against practically any kind of legislation.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Rubbish.

Mr. Ashley: It is not rubbish. He said that one cannot defeat the motorist who does not want to wear his safety belt, but if so, equally one cannot defeat the motorist who wants to go speeding. There are motorists who want to break the speed limits, but we have legislation to deal with them. So there was no point in the hon. Gentleman's taking his defeatist attitude.
When the hon. Member says that there should be a presumption against criminal law, he is of course right. But one must look at the present situation before deciding not to invoke the criminal law, and that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman did not do.
I recognise that this highly controversial Bill has aroused very deep emotions, and I respect hon. Members who dislike it and are prepared to speak against it. I disagree with them, however. The stark issue that the House must face is whether to accept the Bill and save lives and prevent thousands of disabilities, or whether we condemn to death 1,000 people every year. It is as simple as that. The bereavement, the sadness, the suffering, the pain and the anguish of the families involved is appalling. It is something that we in this House must deal with. The opponents of the Bill have to take these factors into account when they speak, and certainly when they vote.
Some of them have weighty considerations to bring to bear, but not all of them. In another place a noble Lord advanced the thesis that he would not use a safety belt because he could not reach his cigar lighter or the sweets in a tray in his dashboard. A noble Lady objected to the Bill because she said there were already so many rules and regulations that she could not agree another one—even though this one would save more than a thousand lives a year. This issue is far too important for superficial considerations of that kind. We are discussing a matter of life or death, and it is vital that we tackle the crux of the problem.
The basic issue is that the car is a lethal instrument which can kill its driver with the same ease that kills pedestrians. Its toll since it was invented must be far and away greater than that of all the

guns which have ever been manufactured. The car driver is in a position similar to that of a lion tamer. He has only to look away for a few seconds before he is killed or badly mauled. No lion tamer would ever dream of negligently or complacently working inside a lion's cage, but thousands of car drivers and passengers are lulled into a complacent stupor by the unshakable conviction that accidents happen to other people rather to them. This conviction is shattered in thousands of cases every year. Some people swop their conviction for a coffin. Others surrender their assurance for insurance and for a lifetime of pain and disability.
I recognise the serious argument put forward about the restriction of freedom, and that will undoubtedly be the crux of the opposition case. But greater men than ourselves have studied the issue of the liberty of the individual from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle through Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and that great libertarian, John Stuart Mill. They have all sought to define freedom—or the lack of it. But for all practical purposes, with freedom must go responsibility, and the car driver cannot opt out of that even with the vociferous and typically misguided support of the RAC. So, with John Donne, we have to concede that
No man is an Island
and that every man is a member of a family or of the community.
Those who say that they favour seat belts because they save lifes and injuries but campaign against making the wearing of them compulsory have to bear a heavy responsibility. Perhaps I may describe the responsibility that those who speak against the Bill will bear. They have to tell us what they would say to children orphaned by a car crash after the parents have been needlessly killed because they were not wearing safety belts. Apart from expressing sympathy, I suggest that all they can say is "Never mind. I fought for your Mum and Dad to retain their freedom of choice, and they enjoyed that right to the end."
What do those hon. Members say to the thousands of people who are needlessly crippled, lying in hospital beds or confined to wheelchairs, because they were not wearing safety belts? They can


only say "I am sorry that you have lost your freedom ever to walk again, but you still have your freedom to choose whether or not to wear a safety belt." That is the bitter and inescapable truth which lies at the heart of this debate.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Rubbish.

Mr. Ashley: We are not discussing whether the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish or short. If the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has read his philosophy and knows his law he will recognise that these basic issues of law and freedom are inextricably intertwined, and the lawyers will not be allowed to get away with trying to befuddle the issue. We are dealing with freedom, but the basic freedom is life. We are not discussing how many angels can dance on the end of a needle. We are discussing basic practical issues. We are deciding matters, of life, death and disability, and we cannot afford to make mistakes based on theoretical prejudice.
We have the practical experience of many other countries, with which I will not deal in detail, since this has been covered by my hon. Friend the Minister. In those countries the enforcement difficulties have not proved insuperable. I hope that we shall follow the example of some of those countries. Trying to enforce the law has been suggested as the main difficulty, and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a great issue about that. However, a study in Birmingham University has shown that in Australia, where the wearing of safety belts have been compulsory for more than four years, the wearing rate has increased to the present level of between 80 and 90 per cent. In Sweden the rate is 95 per cent. This shows that the law in those countries is enforced. It would be a brave or perhaps a foolhardy man who would claim that we in Britain are less law-abiding than the people of Australia or Sweden.
The success of the legislation in those countries lies not only in the observance of the law but in the social pressures created by a general acceptance of the law. It then becomes no longer a brave thing but a stupid thing not to wear a safety belt. But the element of compulsion is a necessary prerequisite to the creation of that social pressure because

of the basic human psychology, which is really human mythology, that accidents happen only to others. That is the basic reason why we must interfere with people's freedom to wear or not to wear safety belts.
If the Bill is accepted, the experts can still work on improving their understanding of crash dynamics and injury mechanisms, the car manufacturers can improve car safety design, and safety belt design can be improved. The Minister will be able to introduce necessary exceptions. I hope that, when considering exceptions, he will consult the Minister for the Disabled about disabled people, who should be exempted.
Today, above all, we need a vote for the principle of the Bill. The principle is that this House elevates human life and practical considerations of pain and disability above pedantic obscurantism based on dubious theory. A vote for the Bill is a vote for sanity, compassion and common sense. It is, in fact, a vote for freedom and for life itself.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I intervene in this debate as one who is a habitual wearer of a seat belt and who commends the same and presses it upon anyone who is unwise enough to accompany him in the passenger seat of his car.
I hope to persuade even the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that I do not intervene under the pressure of obscurantism or out of any insensitivity to the background of loss and suffering of which we must be aware when we discuss road traffic law.
The Minister, in moving Second Reading of the Bill, candidly pointed out that the central issue was what he called the point of principle of individual liberty. Indeed, he said that was the reason why on the Government side—it is true of both sides of the House—there was to be a free vote. It would be a pity if it were considered that, where issues of principle are involved, the Government and their supporters or the Opposition and their supporters should not be committed as such and committed for that reason. Indeed, I understand that the Bill is backed by the collective responsibility of the Government. I think that Governments are entitled to legislate or to refrain from legislating upon grounds


of principle, including principles concerning individual liberty, and to call upon their supporters to sustain their position in doing so.
At all events, there is common agreement that that issue of principle is at the centre of the debate. Yet the nature of the principle at issue has not so far been clearly enough defined. It is not enough to say that we are concerned about individual liberty. I reject the proposition advanced in an intervention by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that individual liberty is infringed if one takes a different view of the application of the requirements of the law to oneself from their application to others. The law is the law and we are equally bound by it. It can be a bad or unsatisfactory law, but that the law is equally applied to all is not a breach of individual liberty in a society which lives under the rule of law
I am equally doubtful whether the Minister had seized the exact nature of the principle, for he appealed for precedent to the whole range of factory legislation. It is important to get clear at this stage that we are not concerned with law where a second party or person is involved. We are not concerned with the requirements for selling an article or for employing a person. I reflected, when the Minister referred to the use of guards or protectors in a workshop, that it is rightly unlawful for men to be employed in workshops where there are not these safeguards, but that it is not a crime for me in my private workshop in my own house, if I am foolish enough, to use an electric saw without an efficient guard.
The principle at stake is very precise. It is whether it should be a criminal offence for a person to neglect or to risk his safety when, by so doing, he does not involve the physical, personal safety of others.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not entirely true that a driver is not hazarding others if he is involved in an accident and fails to take these precautions. He is involving the lives of others, because he is driving a lethal vehicle. If a man is involved in a collision, his instinct is to put his arm out to protect his passenger instead of concentrating on trying to keep the car on the road.

Mr. Powell: The position of the passenger is, to some extent, different from that of the driver. I think that we shall best direct ourselves in this debate in considering the matter of principle if we look to the central issue, which is that of the driver and the additional hazard to which he subjects himself by his neglect to take the normal precaution of using a safety belt.
Every risk to which a person subjects himself has indirect consequences. It has consequences, mental and moral, upon other people. If he is injured, it may involve suffering to his family. It may involve efforts on the part of his fellow citizens in looking after him—perhaps for the rest of his life. The essential distinction in the matter of legislation is between making it a criminal offence to do that which risks others directly and that which has only indirect consequences upon others and on the community.
That was brought out clearly in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) who drew attention to the load imposed upon the National Health Service by a road accident casualty which ex post facto might have been avoided if certain precautions had been taken, and to the loss and damage inflicted upon others when an accident takes place.
The importance of this principle is indeed the importance of precedent; for there is hardly any sphere of human activity where decisions taken by the individual may not entail disadvantages to others and where, therefore, the argument cannot be put forward that he ought to be restrained and his actions regulated by the criminal law because of these indirect, social consequences to others. The difference between the direct and the indirect effect of the risk in question is crucial.
There is one precedent, and only one in the strict sense, for what we are doing, and it is a significant one. I am referring to the legislation enacted under the previous Administration which made it a criminal offence to ride a motor cycle without a crash helmet. I believe that that was the first instance, and this proposition has not been shaken, when it was made a criminal offence—

Mr. Jessel: Mr. Jessel rose—

Mr. Powell: —I know some of the other cases the hon. Member may be


going to suggest, but I am talking against the clock—to neglect to take precautions where the consequence was not that accidents were rendered more probable or that anyone else might be killed, but that an accident to the person himself might be more serious or fatal. I lay on one side the question of drugs, mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). Everyone would accept that the social consequences—including the whole question of dealing with the sale and pushing of drugs—are so inseparable from personal taking of drugs that no analogy can be drawn between drug legislation and that which we are considering.
That precedent in the matter of wearing safety helmets, which this House by about 55 votes to 15 decided to establish, is now being promptly followed. It is being followed within a matter of two or three years. But this will not be the end. These are by no means the only circumstances in which the failure of individuals to take certain precautions in their private lives entails all manner of risk to themselves and, indirectly, consequences which may be tragic upon others. There is the whole realm of sporting activity, such as mountaineering, boating, and so on, where there are precautions which ought to be taken, and which any sensible person will take. We shall be told presently that these, too, have to be regulated. It will not stop there, because it cannot logically stop there.
We shall be told, and rightly, that a man's habits in life—smoking, the manner in which he conducts his life, indulges himself—affect materially his prospects of survival, as certainly they do. There will, therefore, be increasingly irresistible pressure, once we break through this barrier of principle, to envelop one area of personal decision after another within the criminal law. I believe, therefore, that it is of outstanding importance that, even though this principle has once been breached, it should be reasserted and upheld.
I fear I shall not carry the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South with me on this, but I should not fear to accept the loss of life which might otherwise, by the breaching of that principle, have been avoided. As I said in the debate on the wearing of crash helmets, many lives have been laid down, and are laid down, in order to maintain the essentials of personal

liberty in a society living under the law.
Nevertheless, we ought in this debate not to be carried away with the projections and predictions of the Minister. In this context—I am not straying on to the merits—it is instructive to look back at what we were told on the first occasion when we breached this principle—in the matter of safety helmets.
The then Minister said:
Our estimate"—
that is the estimate of the Minister's predecessors—
taking all these figures into account"—
that is taking into account the proportion of people who were already wearing crash helmets—
and bearing in mind that there are no longer people of 16 years of age riding the larger motor cycles, is that some 300 to 400 deaths and serious injuries would be saved each year. One half of these casualties would involve teenagers."—[Official Report, 5th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 771.]
It was under that advice, under the impression that the number involved was 300 or 400 a year, that hon. Members, in a thin House, decided in favour of the crash helmet legislation.
We can now apply a fairly rigorous test to the fulfilment of that prediction. On 29th November 1974, the Minister's predecessor gave me the comparison between motor cycle casualties—deaths and serious injuries—in the 12 months before and the 12 months immediately after the wearing of crash helmets became compulsory. It is here that one has about as straight a comparison as one could hope to get, if one bears in mind the growth of traffic and the estimate, which was stated in the answer to my Question, that the number of motor cycle riders rose between those two years by 12 per cent. Having noted that, we can make the comparison of the outcome with the prediction. The number of deaths, all ages, for the year before was 505; for the year after, the figure was 506. Of those under 20 years of age, the figure for the year before was 236, while for the year after it was 235. Let us consider the number seriously injured. The number of seriously injured, all ages, was up by 12'3 per cent., while for those under 20 the figure was up by 24 per cent. comparing the year after with the year before. If


one takes both figures together, which I think is statistically objectionable, for the statistic of death is a statistic of a different category from the statistic of serious injury, one finds that the number of killed and seriously injured together was up by 11·6 per cent.
In other words, so far as one can judge the matter at all by the out-turn, the legislation had no effect whatever upon deaths and serious injury among those riding motor cycles. If it be said, however, that there is significance in the fact that the number of deaths remained static instead of rising by 12 per cent., and if we suppose that that effect was due solely to the wearing of crash helmets—which I think is clearly an extreme assumption—the number of deaths and serious injuries saved in a year was not 300 to 400, but 40.
So, with the best will in the world, the calculations which were genuinely intended to give the best possible guidance to the House, the advice which we were offered when we decided to establish this precedent, have turned out to be repudiated and refuted by the outcome, however generously interpreted.
I hear someone ask whether 40 lives are not worth saving. Of course they are; but I want to know what I am losing at the same time. If, to delay those 40 deaths, I have to assent to a proposition being established which can be applied successively in one area after another of personal behaviour, then I say, as hon. Members in this House and in generations gone by have said, that in the end the principle is what we are here to uphold, and we must not be distracted by the appeal to figures of casualties looked at in isolation.
I do not rest upon the statistics, though my own belief is that the estimates which the Minister with entirely proper intentions and entirely sincerely has been advised to give will probably be found to be grossly exaggerated. As legislators we are here considering what will be the cost in the future of legislation which makes it a criminal offence for a person to endanger himself in circumstances in which thereby he directly endangers no other person whatsoever. That is something which I believe the Legislature should not do.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I begin on a personal note. In November my only child, a girl of five, died as a result of a car accident. She was a passenger and was not wearing a seat belt. But I must add that she might not have been saved if she had been wearing a seat belt. In any case, the Bill in its present form could not have applied to her because she was under 10 and in the back seat of the car.
My experience of the last few months enables me to speak from a particular point of view. I now feel acutely aware of the tragedies that can follow from car crashes. My experience has made me look critically at some of the arguments about personal freedom. Some of those arguments have great weight but others are academic.
Basically the debate is about the conflict between safety and freedom. I suggest that the safety advantage is so great that it is worth a minor infringement and sacrifice of freedom. The Minister's figure of 1,000 lives lost yearly must, by any standards, be seen as substantial. The figure is of the same order as the number of violent deaths in Northern Ireland in the past four years.
It is a custom in the House that when there is a disaster in industry, in a coal mine or in Northern Ireland, when eight, 10 or 12 people are killed, to expect either a Private Notice Question or a ministerial statement and a demand for action to prevent a recurrence. I do not criticise that custom because it is right. Yet every week 120 people are killed on our roads. Some of them are breadwinners, fathers of families, mothers or children. We rarely get statements about them because the deaths mainly occur in ones and twos and do not hit the headlines.
We have it in our power to take action to cut that terrible figure of 1,000 deaths by about one-sixth and save 20 lives a week. To defeat the Bill indirectly means the violent deaths of 1,000 people every year and each year until action is taken—the deaths of people who would otherwise have survived. I do not see how any hon. Members can vote against the Bill unless there are, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, compelling reasons for


doing so. So far, we have not heard any such reasons.
I turn now to the people who are injured on the road. Many of the 11,000 serious injuries are avoidable. Many of them involve long stays in hospital, the taking up of hospital beds and the time and skills of doctors, physiotherapists and nurses who could be caring for the sick. The effects of those injuries are not confined to people who have not worn seat belts. This was borne out in a letter to The Times on Saturday by a man who said:
… my car received a glancing blow from an oncoming van … which had the effect of changing the direction of travel towards the wrong side of the road. Fortunately I was held in my seat by the belt and thus maintained sufficient control of the car to steer it back to my own side just in time to avoid a head-on collision with another car, the consequences of which must have been much more serious to my wife and myself, not to mention the occupants of the other car
It is not a matter which affects only the wearers of seat belts and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) did not sufficiently allow for that.
The difficulty of enforcement was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). Compulsion seems to have caused no problems in Australia where for four years people have been compelled to wear seat belts. It has worked well in Australia. In most States last year the wearing of seat belts went up from 25 per cent. to 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. Legal sanctions were followed by social sanctions. People began to say, "You are a damned fool for not wearing a seat belt". The rate went up to 90 per cent. as the reason for the reduction in accidents became better understood. In France there are 1,200 fewer deaths, as a result of seat belt legislation.
Only 2 per cent. of motoring prosecutions in Australia related to seat belts. Not many prosecutions are required to achieve a high level of compliance. The main reason for that is that there are no significant disadvantages in wearing a belt. There are enforcement difficulties with the speed limit since there is some advantage in breaking that law because one arrives at one's destination sooner. Therefore, it takes a smaller number of prosecutions to achieve success. But it takes only two seconds to put on a belt—less time than it takes to get into the car. A high

level of seat belt wearers can be achieved by a few prosecutions and relatively little police time.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman says that only 2 per cent. of prosecutions in Australia relates to the wearing of seat belts. Is he aware that every prosecution for any motoring offence always includes the offence of not wearing a seat belt if the person concerned is not doing so? When everything else fails, there is always the seat belt law upon which to fall back.

Mr. Jessel: I do not see anything wrong with that. It has led to the wearing of seat belts and to an enormous reduction in the number of casualties. In Australia the number of deaths dropped by 200 a year. Taking into account that the population of Australia is only about one quarter of ours, that figure indicates the saving of about 1,000 deaths a year in this country.
I turn to the question of freedom and compulsion. Almost everyone who travels by air expects compulsion which is sanctioned by the law under the Air Navigation Order 1974, although that was hardly needed because compulsion imposed by the airlines was already virtually 100 per cent. effective. Everyone obeys the order to fasten a safety belt. A British Airways chief steward who lives in my constituency told me last week that in 20 years' flying experience only one passenger refused to fasten his seat belt. That man was turned off the plane.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell rose—

Mr. Jessel: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman although he did not give way to me.

Mr. Powell: I did not refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman but he did not persist. The obligation is imposed upon the airlines as a condition of carrying passengers. It is not an obligation imposed upon the individual passenger.

Mr. Jessel: That is a narrow, theological point. I have a letter from Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, setting out the legal position and the right hon. Gentleman is welcome to look at it. The law is clear. People must put on a seat belt on an aircraft when it is taking off,


when it is landing or when there is turbulence.
I raise the question of aircraft not because it has a precise analogy with cars but to illustrate that those who complain that the Bill infringes on their freedom—the right hon. Gentleman referred to the essentials of personal liberty—have overlooked the fact that "freedom", which is a big word, has many shades of meaning. It is not one, indivisible concept. There are the great freedoms of speech, conscience and religion. There are freedom from poverty and fear, freedom to set up independently in business or trade, and perhaps above all national freedom-freedom from foreign rule. I claim to care as much about those great freedoms as any other hon. Member does. Like other hon. Members I have close relatives who risked their lives fighting for those freedoms.
There are also freedoms which we do not have and may not want. We are not free to drive on the wrong side of the road, to drive a car without brakes or lights or to drive when uninsured or drunk. We are not free to buy dangerous drugs without prescription. A pedal cyclist is not free to hold on to a moving vehicle. We are not free to fail to comply with safety rules in factories.
We should have the wisdom and judgment to distinguish between those minor freedoms which are worth sacrificing for health and safety and the major freedoms on which none of us would want to compromise. We should not allow doctrinaire philosophy to prevail over common sense. When it comes to saving large numbers of lives and preventing many serious injuries and all the tragedies involved in them, putting on a seat belt is a tiny loss of freedom.
I believe that in the main people who do not want to put on seat belts are not motivated by love of liberty but simply cannot be bothered, or fear that the belt may be more dangerous on than off. That fear is totally unfounded, on balance. It is based on an incomplete knowledge about the risks. The evidence from Australia, this country, France, Belgium and Spain is that the wearing of belts results in an enormous reduction in the number of deaths and injuries in head-on collisions. Frontal crashes comprise

about 70 per cent. of all car crashes in which there are deaths and injuries.
I have heard of only three types of crash in which some people say that belts would increase the risk. One is where people are prevented by the belt from being thrown out of the car. But, according to research in the United States, one is four times more likely to be killed being thrown out of the car as when one is held in it by a belt. The second type is where a person is trapped in a car which catches fire or is submerged in water. The Accident Research Unit at Birmingham University says that accidents involving fire comprise only one car crash in 400, and the proportion of cars submerged in water is even smaller. If one is knocked unconscious, one's chance of escape is much worse, and a person wearing a belt is less likely to be knocked unconscious.
The third type of crash, which is the only one to raise a point that worries me very much, is a collision from the side. Such accidents comprise 20 per cent. of car crashes in which there are injuries. Where the impact is on the other side of the car from where one is sitting, a belt is an advantage, because it prevents one from being thrown towards the impact. Where one is on the same side, there seems to be little difference either way.
We hear of people saying that they were saved because they were not wearing a belt, but they usually do not know. They are not in a position to say whether they would have survived if they had been wearing a belt. There is no convincing evidence that anyone has been saved by not wearing a belt. It is easy to sneer at the use of the word "anecdotal", as someone did, but there is no evidence that not wearing a belt has done any good. It is all hearsay.
There has been talk of the right to choose between different risks, but that makes no sense when we take into account the size of the risks involved. A reasonable person would wish to choose between different risks only if those risks were roughly comparable. No one will say "I do not mind if my wife, my child or I are killed in a head-on collision as long as none of us is killed in a side collision." What people want is that their family shall not be killed at all. When they realise that they are


10 times or a hundred times more likely to be saved by a belt than to be killed as a result of wearing one, the argument for freedom of choice between conflicting risks will be seen to be a bogus, lawyer's argument which will melt away.

Mr. Carlisle: If the argument is so overwhelming for people choosing to wear belts, why does my hon. Friend not think that they can be persuaded, without its having to be made a crime not to do so?

Mr. Jessel: Because the attempt has already been made to persuade them since it became compulsory under a Conservative Government, in about 1962, to install belts in cars. It is absurd that by law belts must be installed but that we are not compelled to wear them. There have been massive attempts at persuasion, culminating in an advertising campaign two or three years ago that cost £2½ million. After that campaign on television and in the Press the wearing rate rose from about 28 per cent. to 35 per cent., but within a few months of its ending the rate fell to 30 per cent. Attempts at persuasion do not work with more than a small number of people. Only 30 per cent. are wearing belts voluntarily, whereas in Australia, where people care just as much about freedom, the wearing rate is now nearly 90 per cent. Must we go on for another 10 years or more spending millions of pounds on advertising to bring about a tiny increase in the number of people wearing belts? The small success achieved by persuasion is not enough.
When reproached by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), the right hon. Member for Down, South made light of the fact that 60 lives had been saved as a result of the compulsory wearing of crash helmets by motor cyclists.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The figure is 40.

Mr. Jessel: It should have been 60. If the use of motor cycles has increased by 12 per cent., as the right hon. Gentleman said, and that is applied to the figure of 500 deaths to which he referred, it will be seen to be about 60. I think that 60 lives are worth saving. Moreover, that was only in the first year after the law was introduced, and experience in Australia and elsewhere suggests that in

the second and third years there are better results. Already 80 per cent. of motor cyclists were wearing crash helmets, so there was not so much scope for a large increase in the proportion or the total number wearing them.
We heard the same argument from the freedom fighters three years ago when, under a Conservative Government but with a free vote on both sides of the House, the crash helmet law was introduced. I believe that the right decision was made then. A considerable number of lives have been saved as a result. I pray that today we shall make the right decision again.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Magee: We shall always be faced by some moral or political problems that are not soluble to anybody's entire satisfaction, for the simple reason that moral principles, also basic political ideals, conflict with each other.
This Bill is an example of precisely that situation. On each side of the argument a case can be put which is firmly founded on a principle which every hon. Member would like to be able to support. In favour of the Bill is the central argument based on the preservation and sanctity of human life, the avoidance of unnecessary deaths, mutilation, disabilities of all kinds. On the other side, against the Bill a case can be put based on the argument from personal liberty. What makes it such a difficult dilemma for us is that these two fundamental principles, both of which we wish to support, are in conflict on this issue.
It was characteristic of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to seize on only one of those principles and to pursue an argument based on it, remorselessly, to a logical conclusion—thereby ignoring, or entirely missing, the central feature of the situation, namely that that argument is in conflict with another argument which he scarcely mentioned, but to which many of us would give equal or even greater weight.
In this situation, where we have to balance these conflicting considerations, on whatever side we come down, there are bound to be powerful arguments against us. That is unavoidable. I yield to nobody in my concern for personal freedom. It seems to me in most circumstances to


be the most important of the political values. The chief purpose of political activity, why we are all here, should be the maximisation of the freedom of the individual to live his own life as he wishes. But I believe that on this occasion the libertarian argument has been overstated.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and the right hon. Member for Down, South drew comparisons between making seat belts compulsory and outlawing smoking. It seems to me as plain as a pikestaff that if tobacco were discovered now, for the first time, knowing what we now know about it, it would be declared a prohibited drug. I do not think this can be seriously disputed. It kills tens of thousands of people a year—far more people than are killed in motor accidents. But to prohibit it in the situation that actually confronts us, after millions of our people have become addicted to that drug and are dependent on it, would overnight open the door to crime on a scale comparable to what occurred in the United States when the Americans, some decades ago, tried to prohibit the use of alcohol. So that argument has no validity in this context.
A juster comparison would be with the safety regulations governing the use of machinery. Throughout industry it is accepted by everybody that, where dangerous machinery is in use, there must be safety regulations which those who use the machinery, or who are in close contact with it, must be required to observe. No reasonable person regards that as an infringement of personal freedom. And one thing one can certainly say about motor vehicles is that they are dangerous pieces of machinery. Indeed, they are among the most lethal pieces of machinery that exist.
The other libertarian argument, which has been grossly overstated, is the argument that nobody is at risk except the man who is, or is not, free to wear a seat belt, and that if he suffers death or injury it is his own fault. There are many strikes against that argument. The point has already been made that if a driver is wearing a seat belt he is much more likely to remain in control of the vehicle after a collision than if he is not, and therefore is much more likely to be in a

position to avert death or injury to others on the road. That is indubitably true.
It is also the case that there is an enormous social cost involved in accidents. The Minister put the figure that would be saved by the enactment of this legislation at £60 million a year. The non-wearer of seat belts who is involved in an avoidable accident makes calls on the many public services that are immediately summoned to the scene—ambulance men, police, firemen and others. Furthermore, thousands of people involved in such accidents find themselves in hospital for weeks or months, where they are an enormous cost on the National Health Service—a cost which everybody in the nation must share, one way or another. Therefore, it is of concern to us all, because we all bear the burden. I do not think it is unreasonable in these circumstances to ask people to take a small, simple, elementary precaution to minimise the chances of those accidents happening, and of the costs thereof being incurred.
The right hon. Member for Down, South, talked as though the rest of the world did not exist. He said that the nearest comparison we could discover in estimating the consequences of this legislation lay in the figures of accidents involving the drivers of motor cycles, as between those who were and were not wearing crash helmets. That is not the nearest comparison at all. The fact is that a large number of countries have instituted legislation of precisely the kind we are now considering. Those countries have made the wearing of seat belts mandatory. I understand that in every single one of those countries deaths and disablements have been dramatically reduced. Experience does not cease to be experience because it is not ours. Evidence does not cease to be evidence because it does not manifest itself within the confines of the United Kingdom. We have all kinds of evidence to go on, evidence which the right hon. Gentleman cavalierly ignored.
For all these reasons, although I share their concern for liberty, I believe that the libertarians have grossly over-stated their case. The infringement of personal liberty involved is slight, trivial. As against that, if we do not enact this Bill into law, thousands of people will die violent deaths who would not otherwise


have died. Thousands more will be blinded, disfigured, maimed, disabled for life—people who would not otherwise have so suffered. We in this House have to decide between these two alternatives. It is frivolous to set a tiny infringement of personal freedom against the carnage which we find on the other side of the balance sheet. I believe that we all have a duty, in the free vote this evening, to vote for the Bill.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I accept the benefits to life and limb provided by the wearing of seat belts. However, I do not accept that this Bill is the best way to bring about such a situation.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about statistics in other countries related to the wearing of seat belts. However, there has been little mention of the speed limits operating in those same countries. Just as the number of accidents in Britain has been reduced because the speed of driving has been compulsorily reduced, so it has happened in Australia, France, Germany and the other countries involved.
What I am particularly concerned about, however, is that we are about to be deprived of yet another liberty, although a small one, along with the attempt by the Labour Party to prevent a handful of people from killing a few hares now and again by coursing and the other small, petty and pointless prohibitions that they have imposed. I appreciate that this is a more important subject, but this is a bad piece of law, and one which is opposed by the police forces. It is opposed by my chief constable and I am pretty sure that it is opposed by the chief constables of most other hon. Members.
There will be several exemptions under the Bill. First, one will not have to wear a seat belt if one's car or van is old or if one is reversing. Can one imagine someone being approached by policemen under the Bill and having to crash into reverse to avoid being arrested?
Then the Minister made the amazing statement that one will not be liable to wear a seat belt if one is stationary. How will that be enforced? I am talking now of the idiocy of framing unenforceable laws. The policeman says, "You

are not wearing a seat belt." The man replies, "I know: I am stationary." Where do we go from there? One will not have to wear a seat belt if one is pregnant. How pregnant? Will one be given a fertility test? Will one be allowed to go home and become pregnant between arrest and appearance in court?
Then there is the question of claustrophobia. I am claustrophobic to the extent that I feel acutely uncomfortable wearing a seat belt and I know that many plump people feel the same. But shall we have to have a certificate stating that we are claustrophobic? Will there be a rash of back-street psychiatrists selling certificates? A taxi driver will not have to wear a seat belt. Why not? Nor will a delivery man. What sort of delivery man? I admit that the exemption of disabled people is a good provision.
But my concern is not only for personal liberty. It is because it seems that the Bill will become plumb bad law. We have heard a great deal of what has been done to date to make people wear seat belts and how unsuccessful that has been. A disc jockey of whom many people take little notice has made television commercials. There have been a fair number of good advertisements and notices on hoardings which have had an effect.
But an important omission is that insurance companies have not threatened to pay very little if an accident is caused because someone failed to wear a seat belt. That would be a better way of enforcing this provision than bringing in the law.

Mr. Jessel: If someone is not prepared to wear a seat belt to save his life, why should he be prepared to wear one to save money?

Mr. Freud: Anyone has the right to do what he will. If a man is prepared to pay the consequences of not wearing a seat belt, that surely is his own look out.
The main reason that people do not wear seat belts is that they find them uncomfortable. That is where more thought is needed. If cars were designed so that not to wear a seat belt would be more uncomfortable than to wear one—if the clasps of the belt dug into one's back—there would be an incentive to put the


belt on. That, too, would be infinitely more sensible than to use the law of the land to make it a crime not to wear a seat belt.
We have always said that a man has the right to do what he will with his own life. I am prepared to accept the argument that although we might be prepared to take our own lives we have no right to hurt others. But before we invoke the law, we have not done nearly enough to persuade and to spread the message of what can be done. That is why I shall be opposing the Bill.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I first became intrigued by the idea of the compulsory wearing of seat belts as long ago as the spring of 1973, when the first startling results from Australia became apparent. Here was a device which, at no cost to the public purse, could make a substantial contribution to avoiding death and injury on the roads—surely one of the scandals of our civilisation today. Since that time, in parliamentary terms, we have come a fairly long road.
The Minister reminded us of the ambivalence of the other place in introducing a clause and then throwing it out. I had the experience of trying to reintroduce it and finding that the then Minister voted against his own clause. Two of my hon. Friends who are present today will remember that July Friday evening. However, perhaps rightly, the then Minister agreed to reintroduce the matter after the October election. We were rather done out of our time during the debate in November 1974 and it is not a minute too soon that we are now having a full day on this important matter.
I obtained the assistance of the Chief Constable of Essex, who kindly arranged for a demonstration sledge, with which he had been presented by the Ford Motor Company, to be exhibited in the Upper Waiting Hall in the spring of 1975, when it was hoped that the legislation would shortly be introduced. About 120 hon. Members tried that device, including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). All survived, I am happy to say, because they were wearing an ordinary inertia reel seat belt. That demonstration brought home the fact that a very slight accident—a percussion of as little as 10

m.p.h. or less—can have a major effect on the human frame.
I accept that it is difficult to make new points in a debate like this, particularly when the subject has engaged one's attention as long as this subject has engaged mine. But it is significant that 21 major States have introduced or are to introduce legislation of this kind. Although not all are fully democratic States, most of them are, and they must have debated this matter before they reached what I believe to be the logical and sensible conclusion.
I also detect a substantial change in the public attitude. The Minister read out a list of the newspapers which were quite clear on their position. He left out the Daily Telegraph, which I am happy to note has come around from total, or at least outspoken, opposition to the much more open-minded attitude expressed in a leading article only last week. A survey of public opinion by the Automobile Association as long ago as 1973 showed that 92 per cent. of those questioned accepted that there was benefit in wearing a seat belt and 61 per cent. said that they would readily accept the introduction of a law—yet only 23 per cent. actually wore a seat belt. Those results were published in full and if they were undated today they should show our side of the argument even more favourably.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is in favour because it will be easier for it to design motor cars if it can assume that front seat passengers are restrained, and eventually it will be cheaper also. The Automobile Association has always been quite clear in its support for this proposal, support based on its appreciation of the facts. It has many millions of members, who subscribe to keep it going. Therefore, to some extent, it is democratically inclined to take a sensible line. The Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, a body set up by the medical profession—the present chairman is Lord Porritt, who has great experience as a member of the medical profession and who is an ex-Govenor General of New Zealand—is wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill.
Two arguments against the Bill must be answered. Those hon. Members who have spoken on the subject of freedom, which is the essential issue, acknowledged that they were in favour of the wearing


of seat belts and were convinced of the efficacy of the device. However, they stated that they wish to have the freedom to choose. I understand that. I appreciate their fear, but I believe that we are only taking a small bite—in the past we have taken bigger.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in what was an impressive speech, swept away the drug argument, saying that he did not accept that the same argument applied to drugs. I believe that exactly the same argument applies to drugs, and many people outside the House share my view. They ask why they should not be allowed to take various drugs or to smoke them, or whatever people do with them. Yet only one hon. Member of the "freedom group", if I may use that phrase, to my knowledge voted against the drug legislation—namely my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). He took the view that it was erosion of individual freedom. I also take that view but I believe that it was worth doing in the interests of the individuals concerned. This is an exactly comparable matter.
The subject of crash helmets for motor cyclists has already been discussed. If 300 people a week jumped over Westminster Bridge, 20 of them going to their deaths and the remaining 280 having to spend more than one night in hospital, should we accept that for five minutes in this House before we erected a barrier to stop them? Of course we should not. There would be a public outcry within hours.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It would be practicable.

Mr. Wiggin: Of course it would be practicable, because it would save the police, the ambulance and the other rescue services just that task which today we are setting out to—

Mr. Lawrence: I mean that it would be easily practicable to erect a barrier. It is less practicable to enforce this Bill.

Mr. Wiggin: Enforcement is not one of the major objections. I shall deal with it shortly.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has not my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) illuminated one of the cardinal issues in this debate? To

erect a barrier so that people cannot jump off Westminster Bridge is one thing—it is like having safety glass—but it is quite another thing to say that everyone crossing Westminster Bridge must wear a harness.

Mr. Wiggin: I do not accept that. My own analogy was much nearer the truth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) in his eloquent remarks reminded us, this matter goes far beyond individual concern. The implications to everyone else are just as important.
My second point is a valid criticism of the Bill. It is possible that some, however few, fatalities or injuries can be caused by seat belts. I have tried to find specific instances but it is extremely hard to get that information.
The Transport and Road Research Laboratory looked at 2,000 accidents in considerable detail. The Minister mentioned this item of research. I understand that not one case was found where death or injury has been caused in the first instance by the belt. A similar investigation in America showed one case where the belt had been deliberately worn loose and, therefore, there was obviously an impact into the belt. It is true that on some death certificates after accidents general practitioners will put:
Injuries caused by a seat belt".
However, we must remember that in such an accident the chances are that if the person had not worn a seat belt, the injuries would have been at least as great if not much greater. Therefore, I do not accept that seat belts as such cause accidents on their own.
I am not an authority on the matter, but the Department of Transportation and Environmental Planning at the University of Birmingham can be said to be an authority on the matter. I suspect that other hon. Members have received the letter I have received. It says:
The decision as to whether a belt helped or not in a given situation requires a considerable understanding of crash dynamics and injury mechanisms and this can only be meaningfully made by those working in the area of crash protection.
There are people who have been thrown out of a car and who will claim that they escaped injury because they were thrown out. What would have happened if they


had stayed in the car? They cannot be certain. They can say that the car was a mess and caught fire, but they cannot be certain what would have happened. The truth is that it is four times more dangerous to be thrown out than to stay in, which explains why every racing driver on every grand prix track in the world is extremely securely belted into his car.
I accept as a criticism of my argument, however, that there may be a small fraction of 1 per cent. who may suffer injury as a result of wearing seat belts. However, that was true about compulsory vaccination for smallpox. It is true for a lot of medicaments that we take voluntarily, and a lot of other things that we do. There is a fractional risk, but we accept it because the greater good is so overwhelming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) mentioned a survey in Australia where only 11 per cent. of belts were properly used. I have found the survey to which he referred and it says that 13·5 per cent. were correctly used. However, that same survey showed that although only 25 per cent. of the population wore seat belts prior to legislation that figure increased to 75 per cent. in the towns and 64 per cent. in the countryside. The survey was taken only a few months after legislation had been introduced.
My hon. Friend also referred to insurance. In this debate arguments about insurance can be used both ways. They are not of any merit. My hon. Friend referred to enforcement. I do not see the great difficulty. What is so hard about enforcement? What is so hard about enforcing the rules about a double yellow line, the double white line in the middle of the road, or the law about bald tyres? All these matters are complex and take up police time. Whether or not a man wears a belt is obvious. My hon. Friend said that his Australian newspaper friend told him that people in Australia were frightened of being caught, which proves how easy it must be to enforce that legislation. If they were not frightened of being caught, there would be an enforcement problem.

Mr. Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend is mixing up two arguments. I was

replying to the Government's case, which is, basically, that no enforcement is required. I accept entirely that enforcement is required. However, in enforcing the law it may be that the police would come into conflict with the motorist, which is the most delicate area of police public relations.

Mr. Wiggin: I quoted what my hon. Friend said. He said that his contacts with his Australian newspaper colleague had made it clear that those concerned were nervous about going out without wearing a seat belt because the police would catch them. That means that it is easy to enforce the law because the police are able to find out easily. However, when it comes to matters of conflict, I entirely agree that any law which the police have to enforce can lead to conflict between the public and the police.
Why, then, did the official Opposition not vote against the 50 mile per hour speed limit, which is broken every day by 75 per cent. of drivers in this country? Why did we not make a fuss about that? If ever there was an item that was let go through the House to make a conflict between the police and the public, it was the ridiculous legislation about speed limits that was introduced on the pretext of fuel economies and has been carried on for God knows what reason. We have never debated it.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does my hon. Friend accept that I totally agree with what he says but that I have held my present position for only four weeks?

Mr. Wiggin: I accept that. I, too, would much prefer voluntary persuasion. I believe that the "clunk-click" operation has been successful. I do not hold the view that Mr. Saville is not well thought of, and perhaps the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) who expressed that view should have attended some of the live shows and spoken to some of the young people involved. However, it is immensely costly and it is short term.
Professor Kirk of the University of Technology, Loughborough, has been doing a certain amount of research into the psychology of this matter. He has suggested that a law needs to be introduced to resolve some people's ambivalence. Perhaps they feel "cissy" about


putting on a belt, or are just idle and cannot be bothered. Who knows? However, once the law says "Thou shalt", the matter is decided for them, and I believe that we shall find, in a law-abiding country, as we are, that 90 per cent. of the Government's aim will be attained.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman has just said that 70 per cent. of drivers in Britain break speed regulations. He is now saying that a law has only got to be made in order to be adhered to by almost everyone.

Mr. Wiggin: First, it is quite a different law. Secondly, one knows that one does not commence a journey with the intention of breaking a law. However, how many hon. Members can honestly say that they never travel at more than 30 mph in a restricted area? The fact is that our speed limit regulations are grossly out of date and need changing, but that has nothing to do with the Bill.
Perhaps I may cite Professor Kirk's very small sample. He asked 61 people whether they thought that it should be made illegal to drive without wearing seat belts, and 67 per cent. agreed that it should be. That is a very small sample, but nevertheless it is significant.
I have never shunned the argument in other fields that individuals should be required to face up to their own responsibilities and that the law should intervene as little as possible in people's private lives. However, here we have a situation in which every opportunity for voluntary action has been taken, even at great cost in money and human lives. Now the time has come for us to act with common sense and in response to overwhelming evidence. There is very little to be lost and a great deal in lives and the prevention of suffering to be gained.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Ralphael Tuck: I am a strong advocate of the wearing of seat belts. I invariably wear a seat belt myself when I enter my own car and when I enter other cars as a front-seat passenger. I think that it is essential to wear a seat belt for safety. The wearing of seat belts has saved hundreds of lives. I appreciate that. Because they were wearing a seat belt, many people have

been saved from death or injury from which they would not have been saved had they not been wearing one.
The hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Fowler) points to the difficulty of enforcing the law, saying that we ought not to make it a law that it be compulsory to wear a seat belt because it would be difficult to enforce. If the hon. Gentleman approached my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his myriads of income tax inspectors and collectors, he would find that there is great difficulty in enforcing the law regarding income tax, but we have it none the less, and we are all subject to it. Some of us get caught fiddling, but the law is there, even if it is difficult of enforcement.
We are told also that this is an infringement of the liberty of the subject. We have very many of our liberties encroached upon by law. It has been said by a great writer that there can be no liberty except at the expense of liberty.
Nor can I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he says that one should not make anything compulsory which merely saves the life or preserves the safety of the person who is under compulsion. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are many regulations regarding safety in factories and that when men are working on the exterior of buildings, decorating, repairing or window cleaning, they have to wear certain gear for their own safety. Therefore, with great respect, I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
Having said all that, I ought to inform the House why I shall be going into the "No" Lobby this evening. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is not present. He made a remark upon which I can fasten. He said that this was a conflict between safety and liberty. Were there a conflict between safety and liberty, I should come down without hesitation on the side of safety, despite the fact that we should lose some of our liberty. However, in my view it is not a conflict between safety and liberty. It is a conflict between a probable or possible safety, and liberty. It is an acknowledged fact that a seat belt is not 100 per cent. safe. There


have been cases in which people have been saved death or injury because they were not wearing a seat belt.

Mr. Russell Kerr: How many?

Mr. Tuck: It does not matter how many. The fact is that there have been such cases. I can point to one particular case in which the opposite took effect. I have not been able to check the veracity of this, but I understand that in Durham two police officers were killed and the verdict was that had they not been wearing seat belts they would not have died. If we compel people to wear seat belts we may be inadvertently causing their death, by compelling their wearing of a seat belt which they have unwillingly donned.
In those circumstances it is wrong to compel anyone who does not wish to do so to wear a seat belt. I know that wearing seat belts saves thousands of lives. Let us therefore advertise that. Let us have an extensive advertising campaign to persuade people to wear seat belts. But let us not make it compulsory on account of the fact that it is not 100 per cent. safe Regretfully, in those circumstances I shall have to go into the "No" Lobby this evening.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) will not be voting for the Bill. We entirely respect his sincerity, however, and we are glad that at any rate he will continue to wear his seat belt.
After a great deal of hesitation and consideration, I have decided that I should give the Bill my complete support, although I realise that many of my constituents will take a different view. I do not know whether other hon. Members have had a lot of letters on this subject. I have not had a great many letters, but at a recent meeting in Wiltshire a vote was taken on the issue, and opinion was found to be equally divided. It is probably true that that is the current position throughout the country.
However, having said that, I think that probably nearly everyone agrees that seat belts save lives and mitigate the effects of serious road accidents. Every

hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has said that, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) started by saying that.
Many figures have been bandied about. It is always very difficult to get exact figures. There must be a lot of guesswork in this matter. Yet figures indicate that at least 1,000 lives would have been saved this year if all the seat belts already fitted in cars had been worn and 10 times as many serious injuries would have been prevented. These are impressive figures and involve a great deal of loss, not only of human lives but of resources, and they involve massive human misery.
I understand that 44,440 people were either killed or seriously injured in 1972 as occupants of motor cars. There is evidence that nearly 20 per cent. of these casualties would probably have been avoided if only 70 per cent. of the front seat occupants had been wearing the belts which were fitted in the vehicles. We all hoped that persuasion would be successful—persuasion is better than legislation—but, as many hon. Members have said, there have been many attempts at persuasion in the past 10 years or more on the advantages of wearing seat belts, and yet the wearing rate is still less than 30 per cent. It may have increased to 35 per cent. at peak periods during the campaign, but it is below that figure today.
I must admit that I am an offender. I know that I should wear a seat belt, but because I undertake many short journeys I often find myself failing to take the necessary trouble and failing to fit the belt. On my way to the House today I wore the belt—I was thinking about the debate—but it is on the short journeys that many accidents occur. Even on short trips at low speeds accidents happen in which serious injury occurs which the wearing of a belt would have prevented. Forty per cent. of fatal and serious injuries to car occupants occur in built-up areas.
My family is very conscious about the wearing of seat belts. My daughter tells me that she always wears a seat belt, but believes that it should not be made compulsory. I think that the wearing of the belt should be compulsory, but admit that I do not always wear one when driving. Many other people know that


they ought to wear the belt but drive without doing so. If it is passed the Bill will make us change our habits, and it is about time.
There has been a good deal of discussion today about experience overseas. It is a little risky to quote other countries, but the experience in Australia and New Zealand is instructive because those countries are, in many ways, like ours. Legislation was introduced five years ago in New South Wales and the wearing rate has increased from 25 per cent. to over 75 per cent. There have been striking benefits in that State since the introduction of the law, because the fatality rate per 1,000 vehicles has dropped by 25 per cent. The wearing of belts became compulsory throughout Australia in January 1972, and legislation followed in New Zealand later in the same year. In the two years after the introduction of legislation in New Zealand, the number of fatal accidents relating to car occupants remained more or less static, while those relating to other road users increased by over 40 per cent.
There has been no sustained opposition in those countries after the introduction of the legislation. No one could accuse the Australians, of all people, of not having strong traditions of individual liberty. We have Australian Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who is present, is an Australian. Australians are capable of speaking up if they think that their liberty may be infringed, yet they appear to have accepted that the legislation is sensible and beneficial. Legislation is in force in at least 20 other countries, and I cannot find any evidence that the public have opposed it after its introduction.
I do not believe that there will be any problem of enforcement. The difficulties of enforcement have been greatly exaggerated in this debate. It is never very easy for the police to enforce any law, particularly motoring laws, but they will get over this problem.
The main objection to the Bill—and it has been raised in every speech made against it—is the fundamental one based on the concept of liberty. I recognise that the right to individual freedom is precious but it must be balanced by the duty of people to exercise that freedom

without causing harm to the interests of others. There can be no freedom in any society unless there are some laws and restrictions. I agree that the State should not interfere with freedom without good reason. For example, it would be wrong for Parliament to say that climbing, or skiing, or pot-holing should be illegal simply because it is extremely dangerous. The reason is that climbing or pot-holing may be absolutely central to an individual's idea of a good way of life. I cannot believe that driving without a seat belt falls into that category.
Where a minor restriction, as I believe this Bill to be, offers a substantial benefit and there is no significant interference with a person's personal or material interests, the Government are entitled—indeed, they have the duty—to require people to behave sensibly. It cannot be right to argue that a driver should have the liberty to take unreasonable risks with his own safety on the ground that the result of an accident will merely bring suffering on himself.
The truth is that the effect of accidents places great burdens on society, and particularly on the National Health Service, which is already grossly over-strained. It has been suggested in the debate that accidents in which seat belts were not worn cost £60 million, with part of it applying to the Health Service. An hon. Member said that if we passed the Bill the Health Service will still incur expense. That is so; but it will not incur so much expense on motor accidents.
The Bill involves some infringement of personal liberty, but the benefits which will be gained from its passing are of such magnitude that they outweigh all the opposing arguments. Naturally, I respect hon. Members who take a different view, and I realise that my party is divided on the issue. It is perhaps a pity that both Front Bench spokesmen from my side of the House are against this measure.
It is right that we should have a free vote. I realise that the principles on both sides of the argument are fundamental. I hope that few Members will abstain. It has been said that when we last debated a similar matter, namely, the wearing of crash helmets, there was a thin attendance in the House. I hope that tonight there will be a large vote and that the Bill will obtain a Second


Reading with a comfortable majority, because I am absolutely convinced that its passing will save lives and a great deal of unnecessary human suffering.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: In his concluding remarks, the Minister effectively claimed that as lives would be saved by the passing of the Bill we were justified in overlooking many of the arguments which could be advanced against it. Neither the House nor the Minister has always taken that view in dealing with problems of this kind.
It is worth going back less than six years, to December 1970, when the House debated a motion to make British Summer Time permanent. It was moved by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and his advice was rejected by the House. The evidence which the then Government adduced, after the three-year experimental period, was that undoubtedly making British Summer Time permanent had saved lives, and had probably saved many lives, particularly those of young children going home from school or of people going home from work.
The statistical argument was quite powerful. In addition, on the eve of the debate, the Road Research Laboratory issued supplementary statistical information confirming that during the experimental three-year period the accident rate had fallen.
Nevertheless, the House—it was obviously justified in so doing, although I was one in the minority—rejected that advice, and it is interesting to note that the present Minister for Transport and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who is on the Front Bench at the moment and is assisting in the promotion of the Bill, were among the majority who supported the ending of permanent British Summer Time. There were strong arguments in relation to the social habits of the nation for doing away with British Summer Time as a permanent arrangement, but in coming to its conclusion at that time the House took a conscious decision in the knowledge that the road accident rate would be liable to increase as a result of that decision.
Therefore, although it may sound a harsh doctrine, one cannot go absolutely by statistics, which are also capable of slight error and manipulation. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) showed from the death figures in relation to the wearing of crash helmets that there was an alteration of some 30 to 40 deaths over a year in a population of more than 50 million, and it is doubtful whether that is of itself a sufficiently significant figure on which Parliament would wish to legislate.
I stress that with reference to what the House did in regard to British Summer Time. We were then considering legislation which affected social habits. We were not dealing with legislation which touched the freedom of the individual, and, in my view, the question of freedom is central in the present case. Apart from all the doubts which one may have about the figures and all the uncertainties about the design of seat belts and whether seat belts can guarantee 100 per cent. safety—clearly, there are circumstances in which they cannot—the essential fact remains that for many hon. Members this is not a matter on which one should bring in the sanction of the criminal law.
The police already have far too much to do in coping with the present problems of society. We ought not to burden them with this additional difficulty. I thought it significant that the Minister went out of his way virtually to imply that he did not regard this as a prosecuting matter. He said, in effect—I listened to him carefully—that he would be happy if the wearing of seat belts reached a proportion of 80 per cent. Apparently, the Minister would be happy with that, but what would be the position if a prosecution was launched against someone for not wearing a seat belt? Would he be justified in arguing that the Minister said that he would be happy with 80 per cent. and he happened to be one of the 20 per cent. who was not wearing his belt? I doubt that that would be a valid argument to use. The House is in danger of either making a mockery of the law by bringing in legislation of this kind or—far more serious—of bringing in legislation which will inevitably put the public into greater conflict with the police.
The good from this measure is outweighed by the bad. In my opinion, there is plenty of scope for mechanical


improvements in the design of motor cars, for improvements in safety and in other ways, and generally for education. We should pause before involving the sanction of the law in an area where police relations with the public are already sensitive enough.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In his opening speech, the Minister said—I am sure that I quote him correctly—"I am glad to submit our proposals to the free vote of the House". But that is precisely what he did not do. His proposals do not appear in the Bill. The Bill is purely an enabling measure which will confer upon the Minister power to make regulations not one word of which can be altered by the House of Commons and which, indeed, the House may not even have opportunity to debate. The regulations will be made under the negative resolution procedure, and it often happens that the Government do not give time for Prayers to be debated within the period laid down under the Statutory Instruments Act.
It goes without saying, therefore, that what the Minister proposes, which he says he is glad to submit to the free vote of the House, will not be known until after the House has exercised that free vote. This is the paradox which we face, and we have not such confidence in the way regulations are drafted that we can start from the assumption that we should willingly give such power to the Minister. I should have had more sympathy with him if he had put his major proposals in the Bill instead of saving them for non-amendable regulations, for there are huge sections of the way in which his putative proposals will be applied of which we remain in total ignorance.
I do not believe that many people seriously challenge the advantage both to individuals and to society of people getting into the habit of wearing safety belts. It is not an advantage confined merely to those who wear them. I emphasise that. Some of the rarest facilities in the National Health Service are those for neurosurgery and intracranial surgery, and it is a well known fact that those whose heads are injured in motor accidents have to take priority in these scarce surgical facilities over those waiting for, say, an operation for

the removal of a brain tumour, and it is important to those who have a tumour of the brain that they be operated on as early as possible if that is the chosen treatment.
I am not, therefore, numbered among those who say that the effect of a decision to wear or not to wear a seat belt is confined to the person who makes the decision or, indeed, to someone who does not wear it by default merely because he or she has not thought of wearing it. That argument does not stand up to examination. The decision to wear or not to wear a seat belt affects others, as do many other decisions.
There are spheres in which we use the compulsion of the criminal law to protect minors but in which we do not use it to protect adults. For example, there is the requirement to have a fireguard round a fire if there are children present. Yet I understand—not from the Bill, not from anything the Minister said, but from a Press release issued by his Department, not a communication to the House of Commons—that it is not the intention to use the Bill to protect children under 10, that is, those who most need it. The British Medical Journal has stressed the advisability of children travelling in the rear seat of a car, not in the front, and of their wearing restraining harness or sitting in a protective seat. Yet we understand—again, not from anything the Minister said, not from any communication made to the House, but from a Press release, which has no force of law at all—that the Minister will not use the powers granted under the Bill where they are most needed, that is, to protect minors.
We have, therefore, an utterly topsy-turvy state of affairs. Adults will be subject to criminal penalty if they do not wear seat belts, yet they may allow their children, if under 10 years of age, to travel unbelted in the front seat. Thus, that most hazardous single circumstance will not be prohibited under the Bill. I say "under the Bill", but, of course, nothing is prohibited by the Bill. We must look to the regulations at which we are invited by the Minister to guess, and no more than guess, which he will make pursuant to Clause 1.
We have been offered some figures with great confidence, but the expected reduction in casualties will apply only


to those wearing seat belts in the front seat. The percentage reduction as between those who wear seat belts and those who do not cannot validly be applied to the accident figures relating to those who travel unbelted in the rear seats and who will, presumably, continue to travel unbelted in the rear seats. That is the first element or probable fallacy in the figures which are offered.
When the right hon. Lady the present Secretary of State for Social Services was Minister of Transport, she introduced the order recommending a 70 mph limit on grounds of safety. One of her columns of figures—allegedly in support of her proposition—added up to more than 120 per cent., although it should not have come to more than 100 per cent. Moreover, on that occasion the Road Research Laboratory had not included in its researches the representative road in Britain—a road with traffic going each way. It was not a three-lane road, a dual carriageway, or a motorway. The representative road was totally excluded from the figures the right hon. Lady offered the House. I mention this in order that we shall not depend on spurious figures for our arguments.
Having said that, I add that I know of no reputable medical authority which does not take the view that the more people who wear crash belts, the lower will be the incidence of injury and the less serious will be the injuries occurring in accidents. It is therefore all more desirable that people should be encouraged in every way. That includes, I should have thought, putting into statutory form what is still slightly in the realm of case law rather than statute law—the policy of courts to reduce damages on the ground of contributory negligence.
But I do not believe that this applies in the case of small children. I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the concept of negligence applies with the same force to small children. Since the regulations which the Minister will no doubt make under the Bill do not apply to small children, that incentive, unless put in by statute, will not exist in the case of small children.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that children being compensated in court for injuries caused by somebody

else should be penalised because of the negligence of those driving them?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. What I suggest is that that proportion of the damage which is assessed as being due to the failure to wear a seat belt should be awarded against those who allow the child to be in the car without wearing the belt rather than the other party. I am not suggesting that they should forgo their damages but that that proportion of the damage should be awarded against the person allowing the child to be in a precarious situation.

Mr. Miscampbell: How does it benefit a child if the money is taken from the father's pocket?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It makes the father financially responsible, in the same way that he is legally responsible, because the person in the other vehicle is not in a position to determine whether the child is wearing a belt. The person in a position to determine whether the child is wearing a belt is the driver of the car in which the child is travelling. He is the only person in a position to decide.
I have pointed out that the regulations are not subject to amendment by the House and that they do not apply where they are most needed and where the balance of principles may be in favour. There are, of course, two types of compulsion that we can apply. I endeavoured to bring out this point in an intervention in my hon. Friend's speech. One type is passive and the other type is active.
Years ago, under the Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, it was forbidden to have the petrol tank over the driver's legs, as it once was, with a little brass filler half-way down the bonnet. It was required that safety glass be put in the windscreen, and that there should be a fireproof bulkhead between the engine and the passengers. We have a long way to go in the direction of enforcement of that sort.
Unfortunately, successive Ministers have been badly advised by their own technical advisers in the Department on the subject of glass. It is well established medically and in every way that the safety afforded by high penetration resistant laminated glass windscreens is grossly in excess of that of toughened


glass. The Minister shakes his head because he is advised by Mr. Furness, whose ignorance was revealed when he was examined before the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure.
I have a file full of letters from consultant anaesthetists, consultant ophthalmic surgeons and consultant accident surgeons, every one of whom takes the view that I am quoting. Not one has taken the contrary view. Yet Minister after Minister, depending on uninformed advice from inside the Department, in each case—

Mr. Wiggin: The object of the Bill is not to touch the glass at all. As in so many instances after an intervention, perhaps I have a better riposte than was given when my speech was interrupted. I was comparing the difficulties with a large number of people jumping over a bridge. My hon. Friend said that instead of putting up a fence, I was suggesting that people should wear a safety harness. Can my hon. Friend suggest any alternative that will reduce accidents by 25 per cent. at no cost to the public?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is completely wrong. To start with, he should acquaint himself with the figures relating to people sitting in the back seat who end up through the windscreen. People in the back seat, including children, will not be affected by the Bill. Children under 10 sitting in the front seat, as we understand from the Press release, will not be obliged to wear safety belts. They will, therefore, be at risk of going through the windscreen in exactly the same way as before.
With a toughened windscreen, there is a very real risk of the glass going into the faces of the people while they are still actually retained by their safety belts. Indeed, there are many examples of cars exchanging toughened windscreen glass. When two cars are in collision, the particles from both toughened windscreens become missiles which pepper the occupants of the opposite car.
Then there is that category of accidents from which safety belts do not protect people and do not save them from the consequences. I refer to accidents due to loss of visibility consequent upon the shattering of a toughened screen.

When a toughened screen shatters there is a very real risk of loss of visibility.
The answer I received from the Minister when I questioned him about this was that it was something less than ½ per cent. of accidents. For the information of those who are interested in the total numbers of injuries, I point out that in 1974 this would have amounted to saving 1,625 deaths or injuries—not an insignificant factor. That is without any compulsion from the police at all—merely a requirement that laminated glass should be fitted instead of toughened glass. I am endeavouring to point out the alternatives if we are interested in using compulsion as a way of reducing accidents.
There are many other undesirable aspects of permitting toughened glass still to be used. It has been discovered in the last few years that people can ingest powdered glass into their lungs and develop ulcers of the lungs and the throat, for which there is no known cure. That is from breathing in powdered glass when a windscreen shatters. When a laminated glass windscreen, with a high penetration plastic centre, is struck by a head, it decelerates it comparatively slowly. If the force is beyond all reason, the entire windscreen will come out and go forward.
On the other hand, with toughened glass a serrated ridge tends to be left all the way round the windscreen, so that the person goes forward with his head through it and then, as he comes back again, his throat is badly cut by the glass retained in the edge of the windscreen over which the neck is pulled backwards as the body recoils into the car. There are many solutions of this kind which could be arrived at by changing not the Road Traffic Act but the Construction and Use of Vehicles Regulations.
Let me say that for me this is not a matter of principle. I voted for the compulsory use of helmets by motor cyclists. That is perfectly easy to enforce. It is easy to see whether someone riding a motor cycle is wearing a helmet.
When hon. Members representing South-West constituencies met the chief constable of the Devon and Cornwall force some 14 months ago for a routine meeting, this subject was discussed. He was enthusiastically in favour of drivers wearing crash belts, but he was opposed to its being made compulsory with the


police having the duty to enforce it. Incidentally, he was commandant of the Police College before being appointed to the Devon and Cornwall force. I telephoned him this morning to inquire whether his views had altered since then. He told me that they had not. He is in favour of the maximum publicity of the advantages of wearing safety belts, of encouraging people if necessary, and of the police even advising them.
But so much police work depends on the golden thread of good will between the police and the public remaining unbroken. The breathalyser tested this to near its elastic limits. I am very concerned lest we legislate in such a way that, by adding yet one more measure of this kind to the statute book, we stretch the bond of good will between the vast majority of the public and the police beyond its elastic limit. This can easily happen in cases where it is so difficult to tell with certainty whether an offence has been committed.
I ask hon. Members to visualise a situation where a policeman thinks in good faith that a person driving a car is not wearing a belt. It may be that the person inside the car knows that he was not and denies it. It may be that he lies and says "I was wearing it" when he was not. The Australian police have many examples. A policeman is convinced that the car which passes his police car is being driven by someone not wearing a belt. The police car overtakes and flags down the car. By the time the car stops, the driver is wearing his belt. That is a situation which introduces an element of antagonism between the police and the public which I am sure all of us wish to avoid.
Again, we have conflicting opinions from doctors. Only last Saturday, I asked a consultant ophthalmic surgeon in the casualty department of a large hospital for his views, because another consultant ophthalmic surgeon whom I know is strongly in favour of this Bill. The surgeon whom I asked about it on Saturday is strongly in favour of people wearing crash belts but is opposed to compulsion. So we have a division of medical opinion there as well, not about the desirability of wearing crash belts, but about the desirability of compulsion.
When I weigh all these factors, not on principle but on the balance of advantage and of what we can achieve as well under the Construction and Use of Vehicles Regulations, especially in terms of glass, my vote tonight will be in the "No" Lobby.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael Ward: I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will forgive me if I do not follow him too deeply into the issue of enforcement. However, as one of those who have complained vigorously to my right hon. Friend the Lord President about the long delay in bringing this Bill back to the House, I am persuaded by the speeches of the hon. Member for Tiverton and others who previously were more opposed to the measure that the message has gone home about the realities of the statistics and the forecasts which my hon. Friend the Minister is making about the likely saving of life if this Bill, as I hope, soon becomes law. I believe that the statistics are irrefutable and have become more widely accepted by the general public since we last debated this matter.
Nor will I say much about the personal tragedy which I know that a number of hon. Members can speak of with such authority, especially the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who made some very moving remarks in his speech. However, I have had some experience at second hand, being married to a nurse who has worked in the casualty departments of a number of large hospitals and also having knowledge of friends and acquaintances who have been involved in accidents, including one middle-aged lady who, only a few hundred yards from home in a mini-car at a very low speed and not wearing a safety belt, was sadly killed. I am glad, therefore, that the Minister is not adopting the French view that a measure of this kind should apply only outside urban areas. It is very important that it should apply everywhere.
Of the objections which have been made to me by my constituents, I mention two which have been touched on by other hon. Members in this debate—the question of design and that of freedom against compulsion. The subject of design is a matter of great concern to people whom other hon. Members


have described as "small". I have had a number of letters from constituents who can give graphic examples of wives and members of their families who are far too small to gain any advantage from the standard type of belt, especially the diagonal type. Obviously, there will have to be some opportunity for designs to be adjusted to suit people of this kind or for them to be included in the Minister's set of exemptions.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend's remarks on that point. We should bear in mind, however, that if people have these difficulties, it is possible for them to sit in the back of a car, as is recommended for young children. Although there is still valid criticism of many of the design features of a number of existing belts, I think that we can guarantee that the effect of the Bill will be to add considerable impetus to research for even better designs than those we have at present.
A number of hon. Members have answered objections to what is undoubtedly a further limitation of our freedom. But there exists a strange belief—it is persisting among many Opposition Members and it was first voiced in our previous debate—that we are only discussing what the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) described as people "potentially injuring themselves". He said:
Here what we are dealing with is not the number of accidents but injuries to people making a decision of their own choice."—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1649.]
I submit that this is a fiction, and it was repeated by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said that we were concerned with actions which directly endangered no other person. What is more, although The Times this morning came down in favour of the Bill, it said:
But seat belts are unusual among precautions in that nobody else is put at risk by a failure to wear them. The individual bears the consequences of his decision.
The point was also made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who said that the criminal law did not intervene when an individual was harming only himself.
I submit that all these points of view are wrong. A driver is more likely to

remain in control of his car and to prevent further injury either to his passengers or to people outside the car if he is wearing a belt.
What is more, who can say that there is no injury or financial loss to families or to the nation? The Minister said that he estimated that a sum of £60 million represented the resources which would not be lost if this measure became law. Certainly there is considerable pain and suffering for relatives upon which it is impossible to put a price but none the less for which the non-belt wearer must be held accountable if he has an accident.
It is not only the relatives but the doctors, the nurses, the ambulance men, the policemen, and all who have to deal with the distasteful results of accidents who suffer considerable anguish and pain in carrying out their duties. When a nurse spends several hours, as my wife has, carefully sewing back the chin of an otherwise beautiful young girl and joining together scraps of broken flesh on a face, that experience certainly has an effect on the nurse.
One of the worst types of patient that a nurse has to deal with in a casualty department is a drunk who has injured himself, perhaps by putting his arm through a widow, or by being involved in an even more unpleasant occurrence. Drunks frequently behave extremely badly in a casualty department. They often insult the nurses, become extremely aggressive and behave very foolishly in the midst of their vomit and blood.
Of course, a drunk involved in an accident of this kind has only himself to blame, because probably he alone is responsible for his condition. I submit that (he same applies to those who have failed to wear seat belts, and we should regard this matter in a similar light—a case of folly for which some penalty has to be paid.
Freedom is relative and in my view the balance falls firmly on the side of the minor restriction which my hon. Friend the Minister is proposing. From the evidence contained in letters from my constituents it is clear that the majority of people will accept and value this minor restriction. However, the important point made by a number of speakers is the real fear of some people that


greater harm can be done by wearing the seat belt.
There is the morbid fear of being trapped in a car which has caught fire or fallen into water. Indeed, in my constituency there are many waterways running alongside the roads and there have been some very unpleasant accidents in which cars have fallen into the water. Nevertheless, throughout the country as a whole the number of accidents involving fire or water is no more than one in 100.
The best evidence we have is that anyone involved in such a situation is more likely to survive if he is wearing a seat belt. What is more, he is more likely to survive to help other people in the car to escape. This is another instance where another person's welfare is involved in the driver's decision about whether to wear a seat belt.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the problem of the side impact. The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad), who has unfortunately now left the Chamber, referred to his mother-in-law leaping to one side of a taxi as it went round Hyde Park Corner, in order to avoid an accident from which she might otherwise have been hurt. I assume that the lady concerned was sitting in the back of the taxi and therefore a situation of that kind would not be affected in any way by the Bill.

Mr. Goodlad: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. My mother-in-law was sitting in the front passenger seat of a car which was, in fact, hit by a taxi coming from the other side. She saw the taxi coming and skilfully leapt to one side and thus avoided being seriously injured. Had she been wearing a seat belt, she would not have been able to leap to the other side and therefore would have been seriously injured or perhaps killed.

Mr. Ward: I am sorry if I have misunderstood. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us an opportunity to hear more details of this incident. I question whether the hon. Gentleman's mother-in-law would have been injured if she had been fixed in her seat by a seat belt. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us more, because the evidence we have from those who have witnessed accidents of

this kind is that the supporting mechanism for the belt is carried into the car as part of the side impact and that the person does have some protection from the restraint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the advantage to elaborate further.

Mr. Goodlad: If the hon. Gentleman had seen the state of the car after the accident, he would have been in no doubt at all. Whether the taxi would have been more seriously damaged had my mother-in-law remained where she was and not taken evasive action is another matter.

Mr. Ward: I am grateful for that intervention because it is an expression of conviction that wearing a seat belt might have made an adverse difference. We have been trying extremely hard to get solid factual evidence from eye-witnesses of incidents where this could have been so. In any event, I submit that even the chance of one in perhaps 1,000, or even greater odds, of an accident of that kind occurring, is totally outweighed by the certainty of injury in the vast majority of accidents if a seat belt is not worn. The majority of side impact accidents cause injury either to the pelvis or to the femur. I do not doubt that, whether in or out of a seat belt, in most cases those injuries would still occur.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the seat belt is attached to the centre pillar of the car. In the sort of accident to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) has referred, perhaps the whole column was actually wrenched out and pulled to the back of the car, or even further than that. In those circumstances what would happen if someone was attached to a seat belt?

Mr. Ward: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to give the House his opinion of what would happen in that case. I have seen one such accident where a car became out of control at speed and crashed sideways into a telegraph pole. The occupant, wearing a seat belt, was saved from greater injury because, although the impact caused the side of the vehicle to be stoved in, the supporting mechanism for the belt was carried with the impact across the car with the occupant secure. I do not doubt that


the hon. Gentleman will give the House the benefit of his own experience, to which he has already referred on television.
The one area where we have heard little from critics of the Bill concerns the overturning accident. I hope that we shall have some information from the Minister on whether he is satisfied that in instances of cars overturning the wearing of a seat belt would be as effective as it is in other forms of accident.
The fracture of the spine is a common injury when cars overturn. In about half of the cases where such fractures occur I understand that the roof of the vehicle is an important element. That would seem to suggest that wearing a seat belt could prevent a large number of spinal injuries, because the person would be restrained from hitting the roof.
It has been said that some accidents are avoidable if a person does not wear a seat belt and therefore it would be wrong to make him do so. There are situations in which taking a safety precaution can lead to an injury.
I do not doubt that if a car obeys a red traffic light and is stationary, it can quite easily be shunted from behind and the driver can be injured because he was observing a proper safety precaution. We must regard the wearing or non-wearing of seat belts in a similar light.
I shall support the Bill and I hope my colleagues will do the same in the knowledge that a number of minor practical points which have been mentioned in the debate can be discussed in Committee and dealt with in the regulations which eventually will be made. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to say something about heavy goods vehicle drivers as a number of accidents involve injury to the driver because the load is carried through the back of the cab when there is a head-on collision. There may well be a case for offering exemptions to drivers of heavy goods vehicles.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I speak against the Bill both as an individual motorist and as President of the National Association of Driving Instructors.
Just as the Devil has some fine tunes, so in this debate the Devil has deployed some very powerful arguments. The

voice of apparent reason tempts us to give up—O, so tiny—a parcel of our liberty which will hardly even be noticed amongst all those other much more important parcels of our liberty already surrendered to no harmful effect. He voices the statistic telling us that 1,000 lives would be saved.
I expect that to those of us who believe that seat belts save a very large number of lives, who believe that they should be fitted to all cars, who believe that people should be encouraged to wear them, who believe that insurance companies and courts should apply financial sanctions for not wearing them, the Devil's voice sounds very sweet and reasonable. For all that, it is still the voice of the Devil.
It is important to see precisely what it is he wants of us. He does not want us to accept a limitation on our freedom to prevent a hurt to others. That would be to put him on the side of the good angels and John Stuart Mill. What he wants of us is acceptance of a limitation on our freedom to prevent direct hurt to ourselves, which is a matter that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has cogently argued, just does not come properly within the field of our criminal law.
Voluntarily accepting a limitation may be one thing, but being made a criminal for not accepting the limitation is quite another. As the Chairman of the Royal Automobile Club has put it:
Can it be seriously contended that a driver must be compelled by law to wear something which could, even in a minority of cases, kill him?
That is the rub.
I wonder what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) would say to the children of parents who might have lived had they not been wearing a safety belt and had not been crushed or burned to death or drowned because they were prevented from being thrown clear or prevented from escaping from the car?
What is asked of us here is that we take a step along the road of restrictive legislation which has seldom been taken before. It has not been taken in factory legislation, though the Minister sought—wrongly, I think—to use that as a precedent. It has been used, perhaps, only in the case of safety helmets and drugs, to


which other considerations apply—that aspect has already been amply dealt with by some of my hon. Friends and by hon. Gentlemen—and possibly aircraft, where the case is different, because in aircraft we are putting ourselves in the hands of somebody else over whom we have no control.

Mr. Jessel: So it is with a passenger.

Mr. Lawrence: There is some contact between the car passenger and the driver. I am particularly concerned with the liability of the driver. The liability of the passenger is secondary. It is the liability of the driver which is the most immediate infringment upon the liberty of the individual.
What is also asked of us is that we shall do this thing although it will not prevent one accident. It will reduce injury, but it will not reduce the number of accidents. We should bear that in mind when emotive words are being used by those who propose the Bill.
What is involved is not a minor but a major step along the road towards the brave new world of Aldous Huxley. If we here in Parliament do not maintain the vigilance which is the price of liberty, who else in this country will do it? Not the Government, not civil servants, not interested pressure groups, but only we hon. Members on a free vote.
I am astonished that those of my hon. Friends who so often expound the virtues of freedom and who are so often astute to attack hon. Members opposite for any incursion of freedom do not realise just how important even this small step is. Once that barrier is well and truly down, once the thin end of the wedge is in place, what other of our human activities, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), with his customary eloquence, said, will not shortly be the subject of well-meaning legislative interference? My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) called it a small freedom to surrender. I reply that it is all the more precious because we have so few freedoms, big or small, left. I for one do not see why we should not defend the small freedoms just because there are no big ones left to defend.
Hon. Members have argued that, perhaps, a point should be stretched to save

1,000 lives. I ask why those concerned about numbers do not rather prefer to save the 20,000 lives which we now know are lost each year through cigarette smoking.
However, the need to preserve freedom is not the only powerful argument against the Bill. Some hon. Members have been so carried away by their tortuous efforts to show that we are not losing any very important freedom that they have utterly failed to see that the whole thing is likely to be utterly impossible to enforce with any credibility. There will be widespread evasion, and that is accepted by the Minister. Evasion at 20 per cent. or even 10 per cent., when there are about 26 million people driving round the country in cars, means that several million people will evade the law. These people will be irritated. The public will be irritated. The police will be irritated to a considerable extent. Once again, the Bill will advance the process by which the law and the police are brought into disrepute. Shall we in this Parliament never stop doing things which make an ass of our law?
It is no use saying that the police will enforce the law with gentle discretion. The law either ought to be enforced or it ought not to be the law. Do we really want police constables on duty to decide as a matter of discretion when not wearing a seat belt is worthy of prosecution and when it is? Do we want to give the police even more reasons for stopping the motorist? Are our hard-pressed police going to thank us for being taken off their duties in pursuit of the criminal to waste goodness knows how many hours in fruitless pursuit of drivers or passengers who turn out to be one of the exceptions, and who turn out to be too big. or too small, or too pregnant, or too disabled or some other category of exemption?
Have hon. Members any idea of the difficulties the police may encounter at night in seeing whether seat belts are being worn, and the resulting time and money which will be wasted endlessly in magistrates' courts already groaning under an excessive work load?
I cannot bring myself to vote for yet another blow to our liberties when the arguments are more emotional than persuasive and when not sufficient regard has been paid to the great harm which will be done by the Bill to the community.
I conclude with this final request to the Minister, namely, that if the Bill should by some ill fortune become law, he adds driving instructors in the course of instruction to his list of exemptions. I believe that the Minister will see the sense of that without my having to argue it.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Once again I shall preface my remarks about a Bill by asking why this Bill, like so many others, contains the clause stipulating that the Bill should not apply to Northern Ireland. After the Northern Ireland Convention has deliberated and come to a conclusion tomorrow night, I believe that the Government will have to stop including this clause, which has been used for so long.
I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I recognise that the problem in Northern Ireland is much more serious than that in any other region of the United Kingdom. An examination of the figures will show that Northern Ireland has an appalling history of death and destruction on the roads.
I took it upon myself this evening to contact the police in charge of road safety and traffic in Northern Ireland. I was given an unequivocal assurance that they want this Bill to be made law and to be applicable in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that these were policemen to whom I was speaking. They were senior ranking officers. They were confident that the Bill should be made applicable to Northern Ireland. Who would know more about it than the police who would be applying the law?

Mr. Powell: Did those police officers give any indication that they themselves would wear seat belts?

Mr. Fitt: The superintendent to whom I spoke has worn a seat belt since seat belts became known. He has advised others who are not in the police but with whom he comes into contact to wear safety belts.
Reference has been made to the number of deaths from road accidents and the number of deaths from violence in Northern Ireland. I was given figures by the police earlier this evening. In 1974 there were 4,795 accidents in Northern Ireland—that is in a Province of 1·5 million people. The number

killed was 316, which was more than the number killed by violence. There were 7,188 injuries, many of them serious. Many of those who were injured will be horribly disfigured for the rest of their lives. In 1975 there were 4,882 accidents, with 313 people killed and 7,340 seriously injured. Many of those injured have lost limbs and suffered serious facial injuries. These injuries could have been prevented by the wearing of seat belts. In 1975 there were 1,067 accidents involving children, and 41 children died. Not all of the deaths could be attributed to the fact that the children were not wearing seat belts, but that factor applied to a substantial number.
We in Northern Ireland who have lived through these troubled years and who have seen many people lose their lives through the campaign of violence perhaps have more feeling for those who lose their lives and who are disfigured in road accidents. That is why I support the Bill. Only last year there was an accident in Northern Ireland in which seat belts were not worn and in which three or four people were killed. There was an accident in County Antrim involving two cars when seven people were killed. Any precaution which can be taken and any legislation which can be evolved to prevent such an unnecessary loss of life should have the support of this House.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: In that case is the hon. Member in favour of compelling everyone to travel by train, leaving their cars at home, since that would save a large number of lives?

Mr. Fitt: I am not an advocate for British Rail, although some of my hon. Friends might care to follow the logic of that argument. The car is here to stay and it is no good trying to turn the clock back.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argued that the Bill would impose an unnecessary restriction upon freedoms in Northern Ireland. Even with his short experience there he will recognise that many freedoms have already been restricted in the Province and that many people have willingly accepted restrictions because they recognise that in so doing they are possibly


preventing an unnecessary loss of innocent life.
I hope that what I have to say next will not sound foolish. I say it in deadly earnest. If this law were made compulsory in Northern Ireland, it could be argued that it would prevent deaths in an unexpected way. During the troubles in Northern Ireland, the car has been a vital factor. Cars have been used in robberies and as car bombs.
To put it at its lowest, it is highly unlikely that a travelling gunman engaged in murder would want to wear a seat belt. Those who are transporting bombs in cars would be unlikely to want to wear seat belts. The application of this legislation could provide a spin-off and indirectly save lives. The police would quickly spot someone who was not wearing a seat belt and this could lead to their apprehending the categories of people I have described. It is all very well for those who do not live in Northern Ireland, who do not see the death and destruction which is witnessed every day in my constituency, to snigger. It is all very well for them not to feel what any Northern Ireland representative feels. This is a serious matter and I put the suggestion forward in earnest.
I intend to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight, because it will prevent a loss of life and the infliction of horrible injuries. That is my motivation, and I hope that motivation will be shared by all other hon. Members.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I have long supported the idea of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Many benefits could accrue from that provision but I had not thought that the prevention of terrorism in Northern Ireland would be one of them, although it is well worth a try and I hope that the Minister will give due weight to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was the latest hon. Member to describe the Bill as a great limitation of freedom. Those who oppose the legislation have been described, I think, as the champions of liberty. My hon. Friend was surprised that many of his hon. Friends who he had thought would champion the cause of personal liberty were supporting the

Bill. Perhaps he and the others who are claiming that it is an invasion of freedom should examine their own case. When they find so many of their hon. Friends who regard themselves equally as champions of liberty saying that the Bill is desirable and could do a great deal of good, it is perhaps time for them to reconsider their position.
If they conceded that they might be wrong and that the statistics should be looked at again, perhaps they would concur that the Bill could achieve a great deal of good for the community and perhaps they would refrain from voting against it tonight.
I have campaigned for this legislation for some years. However, I concede readily that accidents could occur in which a person could suffer from wearing a seat belt. Such instances have been described as anecdotal. I can contribute my anecdote from a high-speed accident in which I was involved which could have resulted in serious injury for me if I had been wearing a seat belt. But such evidence is not significant in view of the other overwhelming evidence that there would be a major net reduction in the loss of life and the number of serious casualties if the Bill were passed.

Mr. Ward: Does the hon. Member agree from his own experience that he did not set out that morning believing that he was likely to have a side impact crash in which he might have been injured if he were wearing a seat belt? Did he not start out believing that he was likely to have a frontal impact crash in which he could have been injured when not wearing a seat belt?

Mr. Moate: The hon. Member is making a point that I was planning to deal with.
I believe in wearing seat belts, but I confess to being rather weak in that I do not always do so. I would certainly wear a seat belt after a debate like this or after issuing a Press notice about it. I want the law to remind me to wear my seat belt at all times. I believe that that weakness is shared by the majority of the public. The Automobile Association conducted a survey last year which ascertained that 92 per cent. of the public thought the wearing of seat belts would be beneficial, but only 23 per cent. of them agreed that they wore


the seat belts for much of the time. That is the nub of the argument. This is a declaration of our human weakness, and we need the law to encourage us to wear seat belts.
Looking at the statistics, there is ample evidence that we should take this measure to encourage people to wear seat belts to a far greater extent than is done today. This debate must be seen in the overall context of road safety.
In 1974, the last year for which I have statistics, nearly 7,000 people died on our roads, 82,000 were seriously injured and 324,000 suffered injury of one kind or another. Over the five years 1970–74, 37,000 people died on our roads. Despite the arguments which have been presented today, those people did not die in a war defending personal liberty. Had they done so, public outrage, with constant statements required in this House, would have been massive. We have come to accept these appalling statistics, this great loss of human life, this suffering, as an everyday feature of life.
I should have thought that one of the prime responsibilities of any Minister for Transport, or, indeed, any Opposition spokesman on transport matters who sought to wear that mantle, was to try to reduce those figures by seizing any means available to cut down the appalling slaughter on our roads. We should be grateful for this opportunity to make a major impact on the casualty statistics.
This measure involves a small infringement of personal liberty but at virtually no financial cost to the community. We can take a fairly small step here which could cut road casualty figures dramatically. On present estimates, 1,000 deaths and 11,000 serious casualties a year could be averted. Those who doubt the statistics and have put forward the case for personal liberty should examine whether they have not grossly exaggerated their arguments. Of course we champion personal liberty, but to build this vast edifice on the argument about whether or not to pull across a seat belt, which is in the car anyway, and to say that is a great erosion of personal freedom is sheer nonsense.
It is argued that this Bill is different from other measures of protection because the law is saying that the man must protect himself. Some opponents of the

Bill have already conceded that drug taking is a fairly exact parallel. Leaving aside the question of the pushers and producers of drugs, it is a criminal offence for an individual to take drugs because of the damage he may inflict on himself. It is a fairly precise parallel, and the wearing of crash helmets is another obvious precedent. Very few Members voted against that. Where were they that night? Perhaps their fondness for personal liberty did not extend to voting against the Whip. Very few hon. Members carried their conviction into the Division Lobby on that night.
I wish to pursue the point about the presumption that the law is entitled to make a person protect others—people at work or in aeroplanes—but not himself. Does that not concede the point that the driver of a car can be compelled to take safety precautions for the safety of his passengers? That point presumably is conceded by the nature of that argument.
If we say that a front seat passenger must compulsorily wear a seat belt, is it not a fine point to say that the driver need not do so? The point has been made that these proposals do not provide for rear seat belts or for the compulsory wearing of seat belts by children. In view of the large number of casualties among young children travelling in the front seats of cars, I hope that, if not in this Bill, the Minister will, as soon as possible, take the logical step of introducing proposals to ensure that children occupy proper children's seats in cars and that it is against the law for them to travel in the front seat.
The statistics have been challenged and queried by many hon. Members. When we first asked for the Bill in 1974, we did not have the statistics which are now available. We had only the Australian figures which, in themselves, were quite convincing. Very few countries then made the wearing of seat belts compulsory. Since that time an increasing number of countries have adopted the compulsory wearing of seat belts. There is now much more evidence than we normally have on which to base legislation, showing that there could be a significant reduction in the number of fatal and serious accidents.
It may be that the Department of the Environment was and still is over-optimistic regarding the wearing of crash


helmets. However, if we are talking about 1,000 lives and 11,000 casualties a year being saved, there is scope for error. If the figure were half or even a quarter of that, I should still say that this measure was right.
About 21 countries have now adopted the compulsory wearing of seat belts and others are in the throes of doing so. In Canada, certain Provinces are adopting the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Many countries whose populations do not give up their freedoms lightly have gone through this debate, accepted the evidence, and introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Many of my hon. and particularly hon. and learned Friends are splitting hairs on a legalistic basis when they say that we should not adopt this measure, which could do so much to reduce the appalling slaughter on our roads. The French reckon to have saved 1,200 lives by adopting compulsion and in Australia the figure is 400. It is estimated that we in Britain could save 1,000 lives a year by the introduction of this measure Yet, in the face of these figures, some of my hon. Friends still talk about the problem of enforceability. There are no major problems in that direction.
The vast majority of the British people respect the law and will accept it. If this measure were passed today and the police took no action—that is not what I am advocating—I am sure that we should find that the acceptance and wearing of seat belts would rise to 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. I suggest that if the police took minor action to enforce the law in that respect, the figure would increase rapidly to the 90 per cent. experienced in other countries.
It was argued that the police would have difficulty in individual cases. That is a quibble. I can think of few more important tasks for the police than operating a measure which would save 1,000 lives a year or reduce casualties on the scale that we are contemplating. I do not think that arguments about acceptance or enforceability carry much conviction.
The overwhelming argument is the impact we can make on road casualties. The figures are so great as to justify without any shadow of doubt the small

infringement of personal liberty which is involved. Certainly we have lost many freedoms. There are many infringements of and encroachments on personal freedom which I would wish to retrieve. That does not mean that every new rule that we introduce is bad.
This is a welcome measure. It would be a tragedy for this country if it were lost. I hope that it will be carried by an overwhelming majority so that the public will understand that Parliament has accepted it. That being so, the people will also accept it readily.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: As many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, my remarks will certainly be extremely brief.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was a bit inconsistent. He said that he supported the Bill. Yet he told us that it was only on the odd occasion he wore a seat belt when driving. It may be that when I sit down some hon. Member will say that I have been a little inconsistent in what I have to say.
I have one of the largest manufacturers of seat belts in the country in my constituency. I refer, of course, to Kangol Magnet, which supplies seat belts to numerous firms throughout the country and also has a reasonable export trade. I have from time to time visited that factory and watched the development of seat belts. That company has spent a huge sum of money perfecting imperfect seat belts. The relationship between the company and its work force and the trade unions is of the highest order, and I was delighted to hear the Minister say this afternoon that it was his intention to discuss this matter with seat belt manufacturers with a view, as I understand it, to improving seat belts.
I do not think that seat belts are a burning issue amongst motorists, but I am convinced that if the wearing of them is made compulsory, there will be a lot of discontent and irritation. I am forced by circumstances to travel from my home to my constituency—a matter of 167 miles—every weekend by car. As a railwayman, this saddens me, but I have to use a car because there are only two trains a day—one at midday and one at midnight—by which I can get to and from my constituency.
During my journey over the weekend, out on Friday and back on Saturday, I took note of the cars that passed me, and the cars that I passed, and I think I am correct in saying that the majority of drivers were not wearing seat belts. It would be interesting to know whether the personalities who appear on our television screens advertising "clunk click" wear seat belts on every journey, and I come down on the side of personal freedom and liberty.
I have heard many people say that they use a seat belt on a long journey but not on a short one. What is the difference? There can be an accident on a short journey just as much as there can be on a long one. In fact, it appears that there is more likelihood of an accident on a short journey. That argument is a little inconsistent, because accidents will happen whether or not a seat belt is worn.
One of the finest decisions made by the Government was to make compulsory the provision of seat belts in cars, but the burning issue when someone buys a car is why he has to pay extra for seat belts, for number plates and for delivery. Those considerations are much more important to motorists than is the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
I said that I would be brief, and I want to honour my word. I recall the late Sir Gerald Nabarro conducting a campaign against the Department of Health on the whole subject of smoking. He attempted to introduce a Bill to ban smoking. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then the Minister at the Department, conducted negotiations with the tobacco manufacturers, as a result of which a small warning appeared on every packet of cigarettes, and I believe that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise something similar for seat belts.
Rather than the compulsory wearing of seat belts, there should be a notice warning drivers of the dangers of not wearing a seat belt, but leaving them to decide whether to do so. I take the view that it should be compulsory to provide seat belts in every vehicle, together with a notice to the effect that I have just stated, and that it should then be left to the driver to make the final decision, just as the final decision whether to smoke is left with the individual. The warning

appears on the packet, and the decision is left to the individual.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). I have disagreed with him on several occasions in the past, but today we have three things in common. First, we both propose to vote against the Bill. Secondly, we both have in our constituencies a firm which makes seat belts. Thirdly, I, too, propose to be brief.
I am perhaps the one person in this House who has had the advantage of speaking on this matter before. That was in November 1974, and I suppose that it is an honour to have spoken against a Government Bill and not to have seen it again for 15 months.
I want briefly to restate the views that I expressed on the former occasion and set out why I still propose to vote against the Bill. There is here a simple basic issue, and it is whether we are justified in making the non-wearing of seat bells a crime. That is a totally different question from asking whether it is sensible, wise or desirable to wear them. I think that it is wise and sensible to do so, and I try to wear a seat belt, but, like the hon. Member for Carlisle, I do not always succeed.
I believe that we should do everything that we can to persuade people to wear seat belts. I have no doubt that the statistics given by the Minister will help people to appreciate the importance of wearing them. The Minister referred to the higher percentage chance of a front seat passenger avoiding serious injury if he is wearing a seat belt compared with the chances of someone who is not.
I accept the statistics of the advantages flowing from wearing seat belts and helping to avoid serious injury. This is a sensible form of self-protection, but to say that is different from saying that we should compel people to wear seat belts if they do not choose to do so. Despite the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) and others, I still maintain that whether a driver or a passenger wears a seat belt will not prevent even one accident. Whether a driver or front seat passenger wears a seat belt will not reduce the risk of the number of innocent victims of motor car accidents.
The only real advantage of seat belts is to reduce the risk to the wearer himself of serious consequences flowing from an accident, and that seems to be preeminently a matter for the decision of the individual. So long as there are those—and there are—who, rightly or wrongly, firmly maintain and believe that either their lives were saved or they were less seriously injured than they would have been because they were not wearing a seat belt, I do not believe that we as a Parliament are right to force them to do so.
Indeed, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) gave the argument away when he said that on balance it was more important to wear a seat belt, although he conceded that in some types of accident someone wearing a seat belt would be worse off than if he was not wearing one. If people firmly believe that they are protecting themselves by not wearing a seat belt, although we may think they are wrong, it would not be right of us to impose the sanction of the criminal law. This is an area in which it is for the individual to decide what is best for his own protection.
We must draw some limitations to the ambit of the criminal law just as we have always drawn a line by making criminal only that conduct of an individual which damages either the interests of society or the property, interests or person of other members of society. We have also always regarded as criminal that behaviour which, although not directly against the interests of others, is, in the view of Parliament, of a nature which causes damage to the fabric of society. Such tests could not be said to apply to this issue. The decision should be left to the individual.
If we make not wearing a belt a crime, wearing must be enforced. The supporters of the measures are unwise to ridicule those who question the difficulty of enforcement. It will not be easy for the police to decide whether a person in a moving vehicle is wearing a seat belt. It will be difficult to tell at night and when the driver is in a car with tinted glass.
In so far as the Bill can be enforced, it will have a damaging effect on the sensitive relationship between the public and the police. Let us consider the situation

in which it is to be enforced. Let us instance a man going away on his annual holiday with his wife and children. He travels a mile or two and is the innocent victim of a crash when a car comes across the road and crashes head on. The man's car is written off, his holiday is ruined and he emerges from the crash more severely injured than he would have been had he worn a seat belt. Will it help that man or his relations with the police if he knows that he will be prosecuted when he recovers from his injuries? Let us take the case of a man who is thrown out of his car after a crash and who is told that he was lucky not to be tied in by a seat belt, but who will nevertheless be prosecuted.
The Bill will damage relations between the police and the public. I know that chief police constables are divided on the matter. But individual police officers who will have to implement the law take the view that it would be difficult to enforce and that it will damage relations.
There is a feeling in the country that as a society we are becoming over-governed and over-regulated. People continually ask why there is so much interference, why there are so many regulations, and why they cannot be left to decide for themselves. Surely our responsibility as Members of Parliament is to point out as clearly as we can the advantages and benefits to be gained from wearing seat belts. We should encourage it, but not turn non-wearing into a crime.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I shall be as brief as I can. I want to put a few questions to the Minister which I hope he will answer to enable me to decide which way to vote, or whether to vote at all.
I am not particularly enarmoured of the Bill but I shall not shield behind the appalling excuse that it will limit personal freedom. That has been the cry of the rapist, the pornographer, the drug-taker and the drug-pusher throughout history. When the House decides on such matters, it generaly makes a correct judgment.
I do not ignore the appalling figures that we have been given. More people not wearing seat belts than the Luftwaffe have been slain on our roads through


killed with its bombs. The lamentable nonsense about the inhibition of personal freedom would not persuade me to vote against the Bill. Forty years ago I nearly starved because we could not find a way of improving society. It was my personal freedom to be out of work and not to take any assistance. Many people in the valleys of Wales were destitute, but they were in a free land. I have been a little sickened by the argument about personal freedom.
There are some issues that I want my right hon. Friend to clarify. He must recognise that there are thousands of decent ordinary people who are in some way afflicted, who are crippled or disabled, and that the Bill, which must be carefully examined in Committee, may take a right from them. They are usually people who have never been involved in a road accident, and are usually superb drivers.
There are many other groups who would not benefit from the Bill. For instance, a woman driver in the early stages of pregnancy might find a seat belt an irritation and would be better off without one. Such topics must be carefully examined.
Is the Minister satisfied that all forms of seat belts and anchorages are safe? There would be nothing more ludicrous than for the House to say that any seat belt will do and to mislead people into thinking that they satisfied the law by wearing any kind of seat belt when their car's form of seat belt and anchorage might be of no use whatever.
I hope that the Minister will answer these questions to enable me to decide how to vote. I am not ashamed to say that I can neither support the Bill nor oppose it. I shall sit in the House as long as I can and listen to the arguments. The decision when I make it will be mine.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: The House is sometimes accused of not being representative of people outside, but in the debate today we have heard a wide range of opinions which are shared by our constituents.
I am not convinced that there is any unanimity outside the House about making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. The motoring organisations are by no

means united. The Automobile Association recommends one course and the Royal Automobile Club recommends another. The medical profession is not unanimous. The quotations from supporters of the Bill have not been unanimous. In a letter to The Times published on 26th February, Mr. John Primrose wrote:
I have been approached, as an eye surgeon, to support campaigns for the compulsory wearing of seat belts, as many serious injuries from car accidents are to the face and eyes from fragments of windscreen glass … but I take the point of view that the enforcement of seat belts, which is not much of a protection against flying glass fragments, is not so important nor so easily enforced as would be the fitting of laminated windscreens.
That is an important letter.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that as long as there is any possible argument that a person is less likely to be seriously injured when he is not wearing a seat belt, the House should not legislate for the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
Many statistics have been given of the number of people injured in road accidents, and there have been passing references to those injured by smoking. But the House would not dream of legislating to ban smoking. Apart from the obvious loss of the revenue raised from that bad habit, such a ban would be unenforceable.
In 1971 I was the victim of a serious road accident. I was not wearing a seat belt, and I am not in a position to say whether my injuries would have been more or less serious if I had been wearing one. However, those much more qualified have assured me that they would unquestionably have been more serious. I had the horrific experience of being trapped under a car for eight hours. Therefore, I have every sympathy with those who have told me that they have a great fear of wearing a seat belt because they are afraid of being trapped, and who are prepared to take the other risks of not wearing a belt.
References have been made to an accident followed by fire. In rural constituencies people also have a fear of death by drowning. In my constituency, for example, there are many stretches of water—rivers and lochs—in remote areas, and


many people there believe that the risk of their car going into deep water and their being unable to release themselves from their seat belt is much greater than the risk of a head-on collision.
If the Bill receives it Second Reading, the Minister's worries will only be starting. Several hon. Members have already suggested exemptions, and more and more will be suggested. Hon. Members will be approached by various groups. There may well have to be a difference between a city taxi and a taxi in a rural area, which often has to accept a fare for 15 or 20 miles. There is the problem of the service industries, the milk floats and the Post Office vans collecting from letter boxes. One does not have to think hard to make quite a list. Disabled and semi-disabled people have already been mentioned.
Probably the most serious aspect is that of enforcement. I entirely agree with those who fear that the Bill might put a great additional burden on police forces, many of which are already undermanned and most of which find their work more than they can cope with. The breaking of the 50-mph speed limit was given as an example of people disregarding the law. That may well be because police forces in many parts of the country are too overworked to enforce it to any great extent.
It might be better to implement the Government's wishes through the insurance companies, which could perhaps help to persuade people to wear seat belts by changing the terms of their policies.
The two older members of my family now have driving licences, and I frequently advise them to wear seat belts. But I also warn them of the dangers of wearing belts. I leave the matter to their discretion. I do not like the idea of the House making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. It must be left to the individual.
There is no question of legislation to make motor car manufacturers fit lights warning that the seat belt is not secured, but that could be another way to persuade the public that it might be in their own interests to wear seat belts.
I say no more, because we are well into the second half of the debate, if not approaching injury time, and many other

hon. Members wish to speak. I shall not support the Bill, as I believe that everyone must make his own decision on the matter.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I shall confine myself to the central issue raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said that what we were considering was the right of the motorist to neglect his personal safety. As the most persuasive aspect of the law in that regard, he instanced the law that helmets must be worn by those who ride motor cycles. That is by no means the only such law. We have imposed many others affecting people's liberties in many spheres of industrial life. But the wearing of helmets was a unique interference, the right hon. Gentleman said, because it was directed solely to the safety of the rider. No one could suggest that at the moment of impact between the head and the ground one would be able to prevent or mitigate an accident. A helmet does nothing more than to protect a person from injury.
The right hon. Gentleman then gave interesting statistics showing that we should beware of figures put before the House. That is a lesson that we have learnt on other occasions.
I approach the matter simply. I believe that the evidence from abroad is that a substantial saving of lives and a substantial reduction of injuries can be made by making the wearing of seat belts compulsory, though I can envisage a minority of cases where injuries are made worse or death more certain as a result of wearing seat belts.
Let us briefly consider two aspects. First, what we are suggesting today is by no means unique and it is certainly not confined to the imposition of the wearing of helmets on motor cycles for motor cyclists. By Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act we imposed a duty on workers to co-operate with employers. That placed on every employee a duty to take reasonable care in regard to his own safety. Indeed, infringement of that provision amounts not merely to a civil but to a criminal offence. Section 33 makes it a criminal offence and there is no mealy-mouthed nonsense about a £50 fine. That section


lays down a swingeing penalty of £400 to begin with, and imprisonment on indictment. Therefore, there are circumstances in which interference by this House has rightly been on a massive scale.
I shall not weary the House by quoting all the other Regulations that are relevant in this respect. We all know that the Regulations governing the coal mines lay clown the rules for the use of miners' lamps, where they are to be kept and so on. Furthermore, the agricultural Regulations lay down safety provisions for the use of tractors. No employee may drive a vehicle if he knows that it is not safe, or even if he has reason to think that it is not safe.
The right hon. Member for Down, South rightly said that a clear distinction must be drawn between Regulations imposed in a corporate work situation and a situation involving an individual. We have only to think of the situation of an individual who, for example, uses a Black and Decker saw to put up shelves in his own home and chooses to use that implement without a guard. That is a situation in which the person concerned takes a risk and is entitled to do so. But is the work situation so different from the situation that faces the driver of a motor car? Is the driving of a motor car analogous to the situation of the man using a drill in his own home where his fingers are at risk or is it more analogous to the industrial situation where people work together in industry? If the work falls in the latter category, there are certain rights and duties imposed on those concerned.
The mistake made by many who adopt the argument based on personal freedom is to believe that the driving of a motor vehicle in today's society merely involves going out for a spin on Sunday. That is not the present situation. The driving of motor vehicles is part and parcel of our industrial life. Travelling down the Ml in a motor car is a co-operative venture, involving cars on the road two or three abreast, dozens of cars ahead and many cars behind. That is a cooperative situation and a situation in which undoubtedly
No man is an Island.
The driver is not driving alone, but has responsibilities for other drivers alongside, in front of and behind his vehicle.

I do not want to dwell on personal experience, but I can only say that having spent a period of 12 years in chambers the great proportion of whose work concerns accident cases, I have come to the conclusion that the simple idea that accidents happen because one car bumps into another is a ludicrous concept. That is not the way accidents happen. In certain circumstances cars slither about, turn round and hit the side of the road as well as each other. In those moments the wearing of a seat belt may allow the driver to retain control of that car, which may save the lives of the driver and his passengers and, even more important, the lives of people outside that car. One cannot put a figure on the argument, but I would hazard a guess that there is a high proportion of accidents in which the extent of a driver's control after impact is extremely important in mitigating the effects of an accident.
If that argument is correct, the question of personal liberty takes on a very different aspect. In those circumstances we are seeking to impose on drivers rules and regulations analogous to the provisions which for many years we have imposed on our industrial processes. I believe that that is the right way to look at the matter. If it is true that a person driving a car is in a co-operaive situation, he owes a clear duty to others. Therefore we are right to ask him to drive in such a manner, and so belted, that he has the greatest possible control of his machine.
Why should the State carry the heavy cost of personal injury and accident, not just in relation to the driver, but of many other unfortunate people? Why should I carry the cost on my insurance of injuries that could have been prevented? Why indeed should my non-driving constituents in Blackpool, and constituents throughout the country, carry the costs in taxation and State expenditure, when those costs could be avoided? I believe that we would be right on balance tonight to agree to these provisions.
I reach that conclusion because I take the view that driving is no longer an individual occupation with no outside responsibilities. Since it is an occupation that in many respects is analogous to an


industrial process, I believe that we shall be right to support the Bill.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I tend to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) in his comparison between driving and the work situation. However, I do not agree with his main conclusion, and I shall vote against the Bill.
It is most disappointing after such a long time to find the Bill in roughly the same form as in November 1974. We cannot tonight debate forthcoming regulations, because we do not know what they will comprise, but we should be doing a much greater service to the case tonight if we could argue the provisions in more detail.
There are three factual points which the Minister clarified adequately in opening. The first related to vintage and veteran cars. The situation in that respect will be clear, because it will relate to cars registered before 1st January 1965. However, since this provision is not contained in the Bill, we do not know the exact situation.
The Minister said that there would be no totting up of endorsements. That is another important matter, but again it is not in the Bill. There is totting up in respect of fuel-saving speed limits, although it may not concern safety in any way. It seems a little unfair in a situation involving a speed limit to have a totting-up system when safety is not involved. Therefore, I hope that the position is made clear in the regulations and that the wearing of seat belts and totting up will be covered when the regulations are laid.
I share the concern about enforcement when the police are hard-pressed and we all want to establish a harmonious relationship between them and the public. This is another matter which might produce confrontation, or at least some doubt about whether an offence was being committed. As one who was once responsible for the National Health Service in Scotland, I know the pressures on doctors, nurses and ambulance men and their feeling that it is more likely that injuries would be less severe or lives saved if seat belts were worn. But I still believe that it should be done voluntarily. I am totally

against compulsion or making the non-wearing of belts a criminal offence.
I am never too impressed by statistics. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) brought out the most interesting statistic of the debate. He said that the statement that casualties would be avoided when the wearing of crash helmets on motor cycles was made compulsory was not borne out in the subsequent year. I hope that the Minister and the AA are right when they say that 1,000 lives will be saved and 10,000 injuries avoided in a year, and I shall look forward to statistics to prove that assertion in 18 months. But at the moment I am sceptical.

Mr. Greville Janner: Can the hon. Gentleman name one country where the compulsory wearing of seat belts has not produced a dramatic drop in the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads?

Mr. Monro: Yes, I will, in two seconds, If he had been here all day, the hon. and learned Member would have heard many statistics.
My next note is to refer to the AA memorandum, which was recently amplified in a letter in the Glasgow Herald by the Director of the AA in Scotland. It said blandly that there had been a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of fatal accidents in New South Wales as a result of a similar provision. I then discovered that the reduction was from five deaths per 10,000 vehicles to four per 10,000 vehicles. That is not as dramatic a fall as 25 per cent. suggests.
I am glad that the numbers of injuries have fallen in every country where such a law has been applied, but I am not arguing that. I am dealing with the question of whether this should be compulsory or voluntary. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that there will be no reduction in the number of accidents.
Quite the most dramatic accident in my constituency, which led to my asking a Private Notice Question last summer, involved a bus in which 10 people tragically lost their lives. They did not have seat belts on and the Bill would not enforce belts in buses. So the Bill does not deal effectively with the Minister's argument.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of that argument is that buses should be fitted with seat belts, rather like aircraft? My own personal experience, incidentally, is that I should probably be crippled now if I had not been wearing a seat belt when my car overturned on the M1.

Mr. Monro: Everyone has a personal experience and I shall come to mine in a moment.
I was, of course, impressed with the compelling letter in The Times last Saturday from Jackie Stewart, who said that, although he had had a number of accidents in his motor racing career, he had never been seriously injured because he wore a full harness. But the point is that he wore it voluntarily. That is the right approach, not compulsion. As for aircraft, if we took safety to its logical conclusion, there would be rearward-facing seats on aircraft, but there is no legislation to that end. When I pilot myself, I always wear a seat belt, but I do so voluntarily.
In an answer on 3rd February, the Minister said that there was only "anecdotal evidence" about anyone avoiding death through not wearing a belt. That is a shallow statement. My own experience is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). My only accident happened 20 years ago when I was travelling at high speed in an open car. After several somersaults, the car ended up flat on the road upside down. Had I been strapped into the driver's seat, I should certainly have been killed, but I abandoned ship on the first somersault and escaped with a broken wrist. I may have been fortunate not to be killed, but I am now being asked to support legislation which, if it had been in operation then, would have killed me. Had I worn a belt, I should not be here today.
One's own judgment must be allowed free rein in deciding whether to wear a seat belt or to be unstrapped, as I prefer. I accept and warmly support every voluntary method to encourage people to wear belts, but I do not agree that it is essential or should be made compulsory. So I shall not be supporting the Bill.
I have one brief question. Will the Minister consider in Committee exempting

open cars with no rollover bars? But I hope that the Bill does not reach that stage.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: The contribution that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) was particularly significant. In his remarks he quoted a few words from a poem of John Donne:
No man is an Island.
That poem continues:
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind.
That is relevant to the debate today.
The first question I pose is: does the wearing of seat belts contribute to fewer deaths on our roads? All the evidence that has been produced by other countries which have introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts suggests that it will contribute to fewer deaths on the roads. I am not a particularly good driver but wearing a seat belt makes me feel a little more secure when I am driving. Therefore, I wear one as frequently as possible. I am satisfied that the wearing of seat belts will contribute to the individual good.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when safer vehicles are designed, which will not cause a passenger so much danger if knocked about, the feeling of security may cause drivers to be careless? One would hate to see more careless drivers because they were wearing seat belts.

Mr. Thorne: Yes, that is a reasonable comment. I looked at the various arguments and was satisfied that, on balance, the answer to whether seats belts are good in themselves was "Yes".
Possibly the most difficult question is, will the introduction of legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory interfere with individual liberty? The answer to that question must be "Yes". My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) is somewhat perturbed about the libertarian arguments on this subject, but they are extremely important. I recall the contribution made by John Stuart Mill to the debate about liberty. It was he who referred to "self regarding and other regarding actions." One could argue, as the right


hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argued, that one should be allowed to retain for oneself a decision about one's personal safety. It is precisely because I question whether the self-regarding concepts, to which John Stuart Mill referred, can apply today that I question that approach.
There is virtually no activity in which, as individuals, we are involved today that does not have some effect on others within society. It is precisely because I believe that if I fail through a wilful decision that I may make to ignore the possibility of a threat—whatever form it may take—and in consequence suffer an accident, like dropping a pebble in a pool, the ripples extend outwards and, likewise, other people are immediately involved. Not only my family are involved or those wth whom I am connected, but the services that society provides are immediately brought into use in order to clear up something that I created by the exercise of my individual liberty.
Time and again we are faced with this problem when we decide questions of individual liberty. To what extent should my liberty be in anyway diminished in terms of the liberty of others? That is the situation almost every time.
Therefore, although I do not consider that the whole Bill, if it becomes law, is completely satisfactory—it is not something that should remain, on the basis of subsequent experience proving that it is no longer relevant—on the grounds that I have indicated and on the basis of trying to assess the various arguments—and I can fail as most hon. Members do from time to time—on balance, I believe that the Bill should have our support. I shall vote for it in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I should like to indicate to the House that the winding-up speeches are due to begin at 9.10 p.m. and that four or five hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: This has been a very interesting and powerful debate. I have heard many speeches on both sides of the argument which have commanded respect, from people whom I respect on both sides of the House.
This cannot be said to be in any way an easy problem. I should like first to refer to the form which the Bill takes. The Minister was kind enough to write to me after representations I had made indicating my displeasure at the fact that this was simply an enabling Bill. The form which the Bill has taken has already caused many perhaps unnecessary fears, especially among those who are disabled and those whose figures perhaps preclude them from wearing a seat belt with any comfort.
Had these exemptions been spelled out in the legislation and had we been able to debate them today with more knowledge of what was in the Minister's mind, that would have been a plus factor. At this stage of the Bill the least that we should have if we are to adopt this form of legislation are the draft Regulations which the Minister intends to produce.
When we reach the Committee stage we may be able to amend the Bill to compel the Minister to draft the Regulations in a particular way. However, I note that he said to me in his letter, as he said in the House today, that he would be consulting various organisations. I think that statutorily he would have to consult organisations. However, the Minister will not be consulting the House. He will be going outside the House. He will not be consulting individual Members, except those who care to write to him. We have to deal with the individual problems of our constituents.
Having registered by protest against the form which the Bill takes, which would make me vote against it in any event at this stage because I think that this is a dreadful way of carrying on the business of the House, with the inability to amend the Regulations which would be crucial to a considered opinion of the Bill, perhaps I may turn to the main argument which has come to me through my constituents. It has been put very powerfully. If we do not pass the Bill, those who oppose it will be said—as has been said in the House today—to be risking the lives of probably 1,000 people every year and to be risking probably about 15,000 people being injured. It is quite something to vote against an argument which produces those figures, but I intend to vote against the Bill because there is another aspect, the libertarian aspect.
The crucial ground for me is that there are many outside the House, as well as some of those within it, who fear wearing a seat belt because they fear that they will be trapped. They feel that it is less safe to drive when wearing a seat belt than when not wearing one. Those people will be made to do something which they feel to be detrimental to their own safety. Therefore, we are likely to have in court cases brought against them perhaps what I could call a conscientious objection to wearing a seat belt.
Those who obviously take the argument that seat belts save lives—on both sides of the argument—are convinced in themselves. However, if the statistics cannot convince people outside the House and cannot convince my constituents who fear wearing a seat belt, how on earth can I, as their Member of Parliament, convince them, and how can this debate convince them?
It is all very well for us to say here, as the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has just said—and I accept that it is a perfectly logical argument—that there is no risk in wearing a seat belt. But we are compelling people to take risks which they believe are very real. I think that one hon. Member talked about the psychological part of this argument. If the psychological part of the Bill is to force people to take action which puts them in fear, I believe that this is a Bill that I should vote against. It is just possible that on a Third Reading, if amendments were made to the Bill, I could change my mind.
We do not know what exemptions are to be made for people with disabilities. The method of exemption is important, because people who are exempted by the Bill from driving without seat belts will not want to be constantly tormented by the police when what they are doing is completely legal. Women who are perhaps exempted because they have had a breast operation or other people will not want to have to explain to a constable "I am driving without a seat belt because I have a disability". Such matters as these are sensitive, and the Minister should consider them carefully when he drafts the regulations.
This is a difficult subject, and I could go on speaking for some time on it, but I have made the points that I wished to

make and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterten: I shall heed your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and keep my remarks as brief as possible.
I intend to vote against the Bill because I believe that it is an abuse of the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) have deployed the arguments on that score very well and therefore there would be no purpose in my covering the same ground.
The House is constipated by and clogged up with legislation. If there is any common complaint that we get from our constituents, on whatever side of the House we sit, it is that this place passes one measure after another without giving real thought to the people. Under this Socialist Government we have passing through the House at present the Education Bill and the Dock Work Regulation Bill. We have had the Community Land Act and the Race Relations Act, to be followed by another Race Relations Bill this week. We have had the Sex Discrimination Act and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. All this legislation is inhibiting and restricting the right of the individual, to his disadvantage in my opinion.
There have been several references to the legislation on the wearing of crash helmets and it has been compared with this Bill. Although I oppose the crash helmet legislation, on no occasion can the wearing of a crash helmet be detrimental to the life or well-being of an individual, but the wearing of a seat belt can on some occasions be a severe disadvantage, resulting perhaps in death. I wish briefly to relate to the House a personal experience.
In 1970, when I was returning from a civic service on a Sunday morning, my car was struck by a heavy vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Virtually the whole of the side of my car was torn away, including the centre pillar to which the seat belt was attached. If I had been wearing the belt, I should have been very severely injured, perhaps even killed, but, because I was not doing so, I was able to throw myself on the passenger side


of the car and I avoided serious injury. Under this Bill, if I had not been wearing a belt, I could have been prosecuted by the police, who were called, on that occasion. Inevitably, therefore, I am against legislation which would compel me to wear a seat belt.
Is not Parliament legislating a load of nonsense? I believe that it is. If Parliament legislates for the compulsory wearing by normal people of seat belts on all occasions, it will be setting itself up as a public executioner for a small number of people. I make that point particularly to those who have spoken fervently in favour of the compulsory wearing of belts. Hon. Members will be setting themselves up as public executioners condemning a number of people to certain death An accident from the side, an accident coming partly from the front, an accident tearing the side out of a car—all will lead to the death of the driver if he is wearing a seat belt and has no time to undo it and throw himself away from the area of impact.

Mr. Jessel: If my hon. Friend were satisfied that the Bill would save the lives of a large number of people—perhaps 1.000 a year—but would result in the loss of a small number of lives—perhaps five or 10 a year—would he not be in favour of it?

Mr. Winterton: In no circumstances should I favour this legislation I am not saying that people should not wear a seat belt—

Mr. Greville Janner: No?

Mr. Winterton: No, I am saying that there should be freedom of choice, and if people wish to wear a seat belt, they should be encouraged and guided to do so, but there are occasions when, perhaps through divine Providence, somebody may say to himself that he will not wear a seat belt and his life may well be saved as a result.
Into what areas of personal liberty will the Government trespass next? Will they stop people smoking?

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell and Wishaw) rose—

Mr. Winterton: I promised to be brief, and I shall not give way.
Will the Government stop people drinking? Smoking and drinking lead to disease, which entails people spending time in a hospital bed. I remind the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) that everyone in this country pays towards a hospital bed, so the fact that people may occupy hospital beds is irrelevant to this debate.
Will the Government say that people should not eat sugar, because sugar intake leads to heart disease and coronary trouble? Will they legislate on how much sugar one should eat? What area of personal liberty will be invaded next—"invade" is the appropriate description—by our Governments?
I have told the House of my personal experience. I have received letters from constituents clearly showing that they do not support this Government's proposal. I have one here from a local solicitor and I quote now from it:
You may be interested to know of my experience. Some years ago I was involved in an accident. A lorry collided with the rear of my car, and I suffered a whiplash injury. I saw two specialists and both were of the opinion that, if I had been wearing a seat belt, I should have sustained a broken neck.
There is an example of another type of crash—somebody being hit from behind—in which the wearing of the seat belt is a disadvantage, not an advantage.
If this House considers that even in one case someone's life will certainly be lost as a result of the enacting of this proposed legislation, Parliament should throw that legislation out lock, stock and barrel. I urge this House to vote against this measure.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: It is not an invasion of personal liberty to save a person's life. It is not an invasion of personal liberty to take out of a river someone who is drowning and who wishes to drown, because that person, with reasonable good fortune, will recover his health and wish to live. It is not an invasion of a person's liberty to say that we shall pass factories legislation which will require him to act safely and be safe. It is not an invasion of personal liberty to pass the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and to require people to take care for their own safety and that of others. It is not an invasion of personal liberty to have regulations which


require people to wear eye protection in factories even if some may say that they do not see as well when wearing that protection as they would without it.
The notion that a law designed to save life is an invasion of liberty is totally misconceived. All the evidence which we can gather from other countries where seat belt wearing has been made compulsory is perfectly clear. In every country there has been a dramatic fall in the number of deaths and the number of serious injuries.
If we give this Bill a Second Reading tonight and later enact it, we shall know that there will be about 1,000 people alive a year hereafter who would otherwise be dead. We know that because in every country where this legislation has been brought in and people have worn seat belts who did not do so before—where, instead of some 30 per cent., the number wearing them has gone up to 70, 80 and 90 per cent.—there has been a drop of 10 to 30 per cent. in the number of deaths.
We can say that it is not right to import into this country industrial relations legislation which will not work here whereas in other countries it does, because our systems are different. But in any country people are driving their cars on the roads. There is no difference between the roads and very little difference nowadays in the cars. Very often they are the same. People are the same and then-bodies get smashed in the same way.
There have been a few freak accidents in which people were fortunate because they were not wearing a seat belt and were thrown out of a car and survived, but in the vast bulk of cases people's lives have been saved by wearing a seat belt. A very close friend of mine was killed in a motorway accident eight days ago. He was thrown out of his car and killed instantaneously. If he had worn a seat belt, he might or might not be alive today. The only certainty is that he now dead. There is at least a reasonable chance that, had he been wearing a seat belt, he would be alive today, and I should not have been dining tonight with his widow and family: he might have been.
We know that over the years vast numbers of lives could be saved, but what is the answer to the case that is made in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat

belts? We are told that it is a question of freedom. The last two speakers in the debate are not against the wearing of seat belts. They are only against its being made compulsory. They advise people to wear seat belts. They recognise that the wearing of seat belts saves lives. All they are saying is that we should not force people to save their lives, that they should be free to kill or injure themselves. We have heard these arguments many times.
Over the years I have had letters, usually from motor cyclists, asking why they should wear safety helmets and arguing that it is their business if they choose not to do so. It is not, for when a person is killed, there are people who sorrow for him. There are families who mourn him. Very often the community has to keep his wife and children. We look after them because legislation has been passed by this House interfering with the freedom of people to starve. We look after the health of people because legislation has ensured that they are entitled to be looked after when ill. We have interfered with their freedom to be ill. It costs money and it uses resources. But this Bill would save lives. It is a compassionate measure. It can operate at little cost in resources.
Some of us have been working very hard to try to bring about changes in the law concerning various aspects of safety. When it is proposed that the MOT test should be changed in order to make vehicles safer, we are told that it would cost £1 million a year to add one minute to the test. But how many lives would it save?
Here we have an opportunity to save an estimated 1,000 lives a year at no cost in resources at all. It may be only 900 lives. It may be—as with the measure concerning motor cycle safety helmets—only 60, as has been suggested, although I do not believe that figure for a moment. But whether it is 60, 600 or 6,000 lives, they are lives saved. It is ridiculous to say that we are turning ourselves into public executioners. We have the means of saving many hundreds of lives each year, and thousands of lives over the course of time.
It would be a very grave error for the House to miss the opportunity to save life and limb, to avoid hardship and suffering, and to preserve the precious liberty of


people to be well. The people who are killed are very often not the drivers who decide to wear seat belts but their passengers who will not bother to do so. Perhaps the passenger belt has some defect, is not operative and is not put right because nobody ever bothers to use it. There are people who deliberately do not wear them. There are people who do not wear them because they are not available. It would be a sad night for all of us who use the roads and for our families if this Bill did not receive a Second Reading.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I shall not take up any of the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who has not been present for most of the debate.
It is a rare pleasure to be able to congratulate a Minister of Transport on having the courage both to introduce a measure such as this but more importantly to see it through its Second Reading debate to the vote. I hope that I shall be able to congratulate him again when he nerves himself before too long to reintroduce the measure on dipped headlamps. The measure which we are discussing is just one of these measures towards greater road safety which are needed so urgently. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the need to pay far greater attention, for example, to the Construction and Use Regulations for motor vehicles. We also had a notable contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on the subject of windscreens.
The arguments in this debate have been rehearsed on a number of occasions. We all have our own pet sets of personal experiences or stories to relate. I am one who has been thrown out of a car which went 203 feet down a cliff. Despite that experience, I am still a firm supporter of the wearing of seat belts and for making their wear compulsory.
From the number of occasions on which this subject has been debated and from the very serious arguments which have been deployed on both sides, it should be apparent that there is a balance, but I do not agree with the view advanced from some quarters that to admit that there is a balance of argument

is to detract from one's case. There is a balance and, consequently, we are called to exercise our judgments and not our emotions or prejudices.
This balance is simply between a further encroachment on the freedom of the individual to do as he likes and the need to reduce the number of casualties resulting from road accidents, bearing in mind that they do not involve only drivers themselves.
On the side of liberty are all the consequent arguments about difficulties of enforcement and possible damage to the relations of the motoring public with our overworked police. But the arguments need to be balanced, just as the figures quoted for possible future savings in lives need to be treated with the greatest caution when they are extrapolated into the future on the basis of the present percentage of drivers thought to wear seat belts. There is no certainty in such figures, and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) did us a service in pointing that out.
However, I part company from the right hon. Gentleman when he suggests that those who choose not to wear belts and die as a result are laying down their lives in the cause of individual freedom. Equally, I am suspicious of those Government supporters who profess to be second to none in their defence of liberty when they give Second Readings to such measures as the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) was right to point out the flaw in the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South about the person using machinery in his own home. That analogy will hold water only when a car is being driven in the grounds of its owner. When the car is being driven on a public highway and other people are involved, it is not just a matter of a person driving round a race track by oneself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was right when he reminded us that the Bill would reduce not the number of accidents but only the number of injuries, and that it was not the last word on road safety. Other measures need to be taken urgently, quite


apart from the Construction and Use Regulations, in terms of insurance, the improvement of belts and research into other devices.
However, in putting forward the Bill in its present form the Minister has not done the cause a service. We would have all welcomed an opportunity to go further into the exemptions that he has put forward and to have Regulations before us for debate and examination in Committee rather than these very wide enabling powers which give cause for concern to those who support this measure. There is a need for greater clarity and precision than we are likely to get by this method of legislation. This must give great cause for concern to those who are justly worried about the problems of enforcement.
I shall make my remarks short, in response to the request from the Chair. However, I plead with my fellow hon. Members to preserve our sense of balance in this matter. I can see little point in requiring belts to be fitted to cars if there is not to be a requirement to use those belts. The analogy with aircraft is perfectly sound. The Bill as it stands is not the last word. I regret that the Minister has not been convincing in his exposition, but many problems can be sorted out in Committee.
I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to give the country the example that we owe it on the subject of wearing seat belts.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall try to be brief so that other hon. Members may have an opportunity to speak. I do not believe that this matter can be settled on the basis of statistics. I am sure that it cannot be settled on grounds of high principle or on metaphysics. I am certain that it ought not to be settled on the grounds of the many metaphors we have heard. It will be settled on grounds of experience.
My experience is twofold. First of all, in the last Government I was for three and a half years responsible for road safety. Secondly, as the House knows, I have some connection with the police whose views have been expressed at large on both sides of the House by Members who perhaps have somewhat less close connections with the police than I have.
I was entirely against the Bill when I went to the Department of the Environment and became responsible for road safety. This proposal incidentally has been kicking around for a long time. I was against it because I dislike compulsion and over-government and because I was concerned about the practical problems of enforcement by the police, of the many exemptions and exceptions that will have to be introduced. Above all I was worried, about the relatively poor quality of many of the seat belts which are fitted into cars. I opened at least one factory which made seat belts, and I am bound to say that although I shall be supporting the Bill I would be a great deal happier if the belts that are produced worked better.
I became a convert from experience. It was my duty to visit a large number of hospitals and to see for myself the effects on individuals of accidents where seat belts were not worn. I shall not go into the gory details. I shall merely say that if hon. Members had had to face the frontal lobotomies, the cranial injuries, the turning of human beings into vegetables and the effects of all that on a large number of our fellow citizens—nurses, doctors and all those who have to look after such patients—they would have concluded, as I did, despite all my resistance to compulsion, interference and over-government, that it is right to do everything possible to achieve a larger wearing of seat belts in this country. Originally my right hon. Friend and I tried to get that done on a voluntary basis. We embarked on a large-scale programme spending large sums of taxpayers' money. We had the maximum co-operation from television, radio, the police, schools and newspapers and we increased the voluntary wearing of seat belts from, I think, 17 per cent. to about 28 per cent.
During that six-week period the number of accidents and the number of people injured decreased. Then, because the money ran out, we stopped the campaign. Promptly the percentage of people wearing seat belts declined and the number of casualties increased.
That is what convinced me, reluctantly, that we would have to go to compulsion. If my party had been in Government and those of us who were formerly at the Ministry for Transport had still occupied


those positions, I believe that we should have had to introduce something not far removed from this Bill.
I do not like the Bill. The House should be given an opportunity to discuss the Regulations. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to set a vesting date and not to apply this legislation until he is much more satisfied than I am about the quality and efficiency of the belts which are fitted to some cars. Nevertheless, I shall give this measure that support which, in my case at least, comes from hard experience.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: It will be difficult for me to deploy my arguments in four minutes at this late stage after the persuasive arguments which have been advanced by someone under whom I have served when I was chairman of a Conservative Parliamentary committee very concerned with this question.
I have not changed my mind. I am firmly convinced that this is not the Bill to achieve what Ministers have wanted for a long time to achieve, although there has been success in other countries. For some years, particularly in recent years, I have advocated the use of seat belts. I seldom make a motor journey without attaching a seat belt. Even if I start a journey without a belt it is not long before I remember to attach the belt. It is vital that the belt can be attached with one hand, but some of the older type seat belts made it difficult for the driver to do this.
I attempted to speak on this subject in November 1974. I then thought that the Bill was inadequate. We have had time to think about it. I still think that the method of going about this matter is wrong. The approach to the House is wrong, for this Bill is a blank cheque for further regulations the content of which we must discuss in the House. Interested parties must be involved.
I have been involved with the Institute of Advanced Motorists, where opinions are still divided. I have been involved with the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club, which have opposite views. But there is a growing appreciation that seat belts should be worn.
Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), have pointed out that the wearing of seat belts results in a reduction in the number of accidents. I believe that 1,000 lives would be saved each year and 10,000 to 15,000 serious accidents, if belts were worn by all motorists.

Mr. A. P. Costain: My hon. Friend now and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) have both spoken about the number of accidents being reduced. Does not my hon. Friend mean that the wearing of seat belts results in the number of fatal injuries resulting from road accidents being reduced?

Mr. Osborn: Yes, I meant the consequences of accidents—in other words, deaths or injuries from accidents.
If this proposal goes ahead as it seems the Government intend, with regulations, the police will have an amazingly difficult confrontation with the public. How am I to be apprehended for not wearing a seat belt? If I stop my car and ask a policeman the way, will he have to say to me "You are not wearing your seat belt. I must charge you", with the result that I shall be taken to court and fined £50? This could be a source of friction all the time.
A driver who sees a traffic block and perhaps a waiting policeman ahead of him could probably put his seat belt on in time. Is this the way to encourage drivers who are ill at ease about seat belts to wear them?
I agree that some drivers would find it difficult to persuade their passengers to wear seat belts without such a law. I offer my passengers a seat belt, but many of them will not wear one. Many women object to wearing a seat belt, as will other categories of passenger who have special reasons. A much more positive approach derives from the case in 1974 when Lord Denning said that there could be a 25 per cent. element of contributory negligence when seat belts were not worn. I believe that a much more sensible approach would be to provide that in cases of injury where the wearing of a seat belt would have limited the extent of the injuries, but where a seat belt was not worn, the injured person should have to pay, say, £300 or even


up to £500 towards the cost of his medical treatment. That would drive home the point that it was worth wearing a seat belt. This possible approach has not been discussed. There are other approaches which could be explored, such as have been developed in the USA, and I hope that the House will explore them.
I fear that this Bill and the consequential regulations will make the law look ridiculous, and bring it into contempt but I support the objective of making driving safer and I would support any measure to encourage people to wear their seat belts, but I shall oppose this Bill tonight.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) had to cut his speech short, since his contributions on this subject are very much enjoyed by the House. I am very conscious that there is no hope of getting agreement on this issue among my hon. and right hon. Friends, let alone in the House generally. The Bill and the subject arouse a whole range of intellectual and emotional responses which cut across party lines. It is an issue on which many hon. Members have shown that they feel deeply. That is often the case when the party managers agree on a free vote. That is what makes such a debate interesting. It often shows the House at its best, with discussion free of the inhibitions and responsibilities of office and Opposition. When there is no organised Whip there is often a higher level of interest among hon. Members than otherwise.
The Bill will affect the day-to-day lives and behaviour of millions of our fellow countrymen. Just as emotions run deep on this issue in the House, so, as my postbag shows, many individuals and organisations outside have taken great trouble to make their views known to hon. Members. The two major motoring organisations have gone to great lengths in that respect, and they take opposing views. The contributions to the debate today have shown how wide-ranging are the attitudes in the House. If those who support the Bill think that my comments are too selective it is because I think that some of the speeches in support need a counter-point in order to give the debate some balance.
It would have been far better if the Regulations had been included as part of the Bill. If that is not possible, the very least the Minister should do in Committee is to switch from the negative resolution procedure to the affirmative resolution procedure so that we are guaranteed a proper debate on the Regulations.
The Minister quoted the statistics from Australia where he said there had been a 17 per cent. reduction in fatalities since the compulsory wearing of seat belts was introduced. I was surprised that he quoted that figure because he is implying that the Bill will lead to a 50 per cent. reduction in this country. I do not believe that we shall achieve anything like that kind of reduction in fatalities. The relevant accident statistics for Australia and other countries demonstrate certain factors immediately. In 1969, before people were compelled to wear seat belts, the number of fatalities per 10,000 vehicles was approximately 60 per cent. more in Australia than here. In 1974, after the date for the compulsory wearing of seat belts in Australia, the difference was 50 per cent., which was not a significant change. Furthermore, the statistics for fatalities per 100,000 population, roughly two to one in 1969, were again unchanged by 1974. I make this point because there is a danger that we may bemuse ourselves by statistics. It is obvious that many things can be proved by different figures—sometimes by the same figures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made a thoughtful contribution to the debate in an excellent speech. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) did not seem to appreciate it. I think that the rest of the House did.
Amongst the other comments which have been made, I think that, whatever we may feel about the Bill, we were all impressed by the sincerity of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I am sure that the whole House sympathised with him on the points which he put forward in such detail. I should like to take up one or two of the points that he made. For example, he referred to aviation and to the fact that when we fly in commercial airliners we are expected to put on seat belts.
There are differences between flying in an airliner and driving a car. In the first place, for most people who want to travel considerable distances across this planet there is a choice. One can go by air or by ship, although that is much slower. On land one can go by train, but increasingly for many people in this country there is no choice other than to make a journey by private car. A person who is driving a car does at least feel that he has some control over his own destiny. A passenger in an airliner certainly does not have that comfort.

Mr. Jessel: My point was about compulsion. One is compelled by law when flying in an aircraft to use a seat belt. Virtually anyone, including almost all Members of this House, has accepted that compulsion when flying in an aircraft without regarding it as an interference with freedom.

Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend made that point quite vividly this afternoon.
Later we had a contribution by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) who tended to scoff at the idea that smoking or alcohol was in the same category as legislation of this type. I think that the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that dangerous sports, such as mountaineering and pot-holing, could have the same kind of argument applied to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave us a somewhat gory description of the effects of shattered windscreens. That graphic account brought home to the House the serious nature of the matter we are debating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made an interesting declaration in his speech. He said that he was making a declaration of a human weakness. That is a refrshing change in this Chamber. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his declaration.
One of the most telling contributions, even though it does not coincide with my views, came from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) who made an effective speech to those who believe entirely in the libertarian argument. It revealed a wide range of views and showed clearly not only that hon. Members have strong

views one way or the other, but that this issue is more finely balanced that would at first sight appear. Often one aspect of one argument tips the balance. In passing, I admit that I belong to this category. Such is the nature of this debate that, whilst in due course I shall explain my position, I think it right that the major part of my remarks must relate to balancing the various points for and against the Bill.
It is obvious that this question needs the public debate that it is receiving. There are many details and questions that remain unanswered, and these will need to be dealt with should the Bill obtain a Second Reading. The Minister for his part has made it clear that he has a strong preoccupation with road safety, and there can be no criticism of him for that.

Mr. Ashley: The hon. Gentleman says that the argument is finely balanced. Does he agree that if the Bill falls tonight 1,000 people will die next year and every year, and that 30,000 people will be seriously injured?

Mr. Fry: I think I have said enough to show that there is some doubt about the statistics. I believe that such figures tend to be emotive. Every hon. Member is entitled to draw whatever conclusion he wishes from this debate.
This question has perturbed the Minister for a considerable time, and he has made his main stand on improving road safety. We do not criticise him for that, but if he is over-zealous, disadvantages could result from some of the measures that he brings before us. The Minister has presented strong evidence about the number of lives that will be saved and the number of serious injuries that will be avoided if the Bill becomes law. Examples have been given of other countries, and statistics have been quoted from Australia, New Zealand and France. In all those countries the number of fatalities has been reduced. Everyone would agree that the cost to the State of road casualties, let alone in individual suffering, is high, and we all want to find ways of reducing it.
On the other hand—and this applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House—there are those who argue that the number of accidents will not be reduced by the Bill, and that in any case casualty


figures are improving. They argue that the issue is not whether wearing a seat belt is desirable. They accept that it is, and they admit that many lives and injuries can be saved by wearing one. They accept that the statistics show that it is better if seat belts are worn, but they say that whilst every encouragement should be given to the wearing of them, that does not necessarily involve compulsion. In putting forward such views they illustrate that the debate is not just over statistics, or even road safety. It is a matter of the relationship of the State to the individual and the individual's right to choose whether to protect himself against danger or to accept a risk of which he is aware.
A whole range of activities such as mountaineering, pot-holing and even carrying out electrical repairs to the home can be highly dangerous. Reference has been made to the personal habits of individuals, such as drinking alcohol and smoking, being dangerous. All those things can cause death, and they can cost the State dearly in terms of medical treatment, yet so far we have not had any legislation to prevent the adult individual from accepting the risks involved in any of those activities.
To persuade the House and, indeed, the British public to accept the Bill will require a more imaginative approach than the mere recital of facts and figures. I think it is only fair to say that those who are strongly in favour of the Bill have their answers ready. They say that it is all very well to agree to people wearing seat bells but if they choose not to do so some alternative must be found to ensure a higher rate of usage. They point to the compulsory wearing of helmets by motor cyclists—and this was referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—as an infringement of the right of the individual to decide whether to protect himself.
It is clear that objections from individuals in other countries which have brought in a similar law have not survived. Very often, it has been discovered that after a number of years many of those who originally thought that the legislation was a bad idea have come to accept it, and I therefore believe that it is unwise to say that people in this country will not accept this legislation. None the less, there are some who feel

strongly about it. Thus, even within the two major grounds of support and opposition to the Bill—on road safety and on individual liberty—it is possible to find arguments to encourage a contrary opinion, and yet for those who are still uncertain about how to vote, fortunately—or perhaps unfortunately—the debate by no means stops there.
Another main area of contention concerns the enforceability of the legislation. Many hon. Members have commented on the relationship between the police and the public. Everyone will agree that the motoring laws are a main source of friction. Many people believe that the Bill will be a further excuse for stopping motorists and for restricting the individual's freedom of movement. Others, including magistrates and police officers, believe that the introduction of the Bill will lead to enforcement difficulties. I believe that problems of enforcement will arise in our discussions in Committee and when the Minister makes Regulations, particularly those concerning exemptions. If drivers making regular deliveries of a local nature are to be excluded, for example milkmen, would members of the WRVS making meals-on-wheels deliveries near their homes in their own cars also be exempt? That could lead to confusion. The situation would be that someone driving the same vehicle would be exempt from the law on one journey and on another be forced to wear a seat belt. That kind of confusion must be settled before the Regulations come into force.
There are doubts about the Bill because the police might be unwilling to accept another intrusion between themselves and the motorist. Police officers are aware of the difficulties that could exist and they are proud of the good relations they have with the public.
There is an answer to those who have such doubts on enforceability. The countries that have adopted the measure have not found any great difficulties. We are told that in Australia 80 per cent. of drivers now wear seat belts and that in Sweden the figure is 75 per cent., without any noticeable increase in police activity. Compulsion in France was at first restricted to rural roads without urban speed limits. It was felt that there was more likelihood of maximum compliance by drivers using motorways and trunk roads than when they were making short


town journeys. The question of the law being acceptable to the motorists was in the minds of the legislators when they framed the law. Only later is it to be compulsory to wear seat belts in urban areas. Although that could be confusing to the motorist, there appears to be a certain Gallic logic in proceeding in that manner because it is a means of obtaining the agreement and co-operation of the public.
There is an even wider variety of points made on the technical arguments. Many people believe that some belts are so badly designed and fitted that they cause danger, discomfort and inconvenience and that considerable improvement in them is needed. It is also argued that the danger is greater wearing a seat belt when a car catches a fire or becomes immersed in water. To those arguments the lobby in favour of compulsion would say that one could wait for ever for the perfect seat belt. In the meantime many lives would be lost and it would be many years before a Bill was introduced. They would also point out that less than 1 per cent. of road accidents involve fire or immersion in water and that without a belt, it is more likely that the driver would be knocked unconscious and therefore unable to escape. Finally, they would say that analyses of accidents tend to show that those where the wearing of a belt contribute to injury are very few.
I have no desire to confuse the House any more. Some hon. Members are very clear in their own minds on this issue. Others regard the matter more in grey terms than in black and white. But there is one further area of disagreement to which I should refer—the attitude of the courts in awarding damages to people injured in road accidents. There is already an established practice of deducting 25 per cent. or 15 per cent. from fixed figures when a seat belt has not been worn, depending on whether wearing the belt would have made all the difference or just a considerable difference. But the nature and cause of accidents vary so much that such a rule of thumb is not satisfactory.
If that is the situation before compulsion, what will it be afterwards? The Minister owes it to the courts to try to answer these difficult questions. Let us,

for example, take the driver who is innocent of any fault other than not wearing a seat belt, who is proceeding lawfully down the road and is killed by a drunken driver who is wearing a belt. What damages should be awarded to the family of the driver who was not wearing a belt but was otherwise blameless? If adequate damages are not awarded, what is the State's responsibility to the family?
There are good grounds for taking an attitude either for or against the Bill. Into every apparently certain argument an opponent can insert a doubt to make others pause. How, then, should those who do not see the matter in black and white decide the issue?
Here I should try to explain how I have made up my mind how to vote. Of all the conflicting arguments I have heard, one strikes me as most significant. Many of us have had letters from constituents and talks with constituents who are violently against compulsion. They usually feel that they will escape, or that they have escaped, death or injury through not wearing a belt. From my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) we had a personal example. Some people may be mistaken, but some speak from experience. On Saturday I spoke to just such a person who was thrown into the back seat of a car because he was not wearing a belt, and so avoided being crushed by the roof and wheel, which were pushed close together. To such people statistical arguments have little relevance. It does not matter to them that there are only a few accidents of that type.
As legislators, we have a duty to respect the views and thoughts of the minority as well as of the majority. We must decide whether to vote for a measure which would compel the minority to do something which they sincerely believe is prejudicial to their safety. H one person was killed because of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, that section of the community would say that he was killed because of the law. That many lives would be saved by the wearing of belts, or that people should wear them voluntarily, does not detract from that argument.
Although I am ready to wear a seat belt, I am not prepared to disregard the views of that minority. Therefore, I shall


vote against the Bill. However, I must make it clear that I am not giving advice from the Front Bench to my hon. Friends. Hon. Members must examine their own consciences as well as the arguments, and vote accordingly. Some of my senior hon. Friends—my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—have declared that they will vote for the Bill. Naturally, I respect their views, as I hope the House respects mine.
I end with two hopes. The first is that many hon. Members will take part in the Division tonight to see that the House makes a clear decision. The second is that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, we can in Committee resolve some of the doubts and uncertainties which have been revealed in this debate.

9.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): As with most debates that end on a free vote in this House, the present debate has been useful and thoughtful. As a comparatively new Minister, I feel that I have a special responsibility tonight in that perhaps my speech will have some effect on how Members will vote. As a new Minister in the Department, I certainly cannot complain about lack of practice at speaking at the Dispatch Box.
Like most others in the House, I wear my seat belt when driving. Indeed, if members of the public wore their seat belts to the same extent as hon. Members say they wear them, this Bill would not be necessary. I always wear a seat belt when in motor vehicles and I tell my passengers to do the same, because they matter, too.
The other week I was asked to meet a United Nations committee conducting discussions on a subject which it termed "occupant restraint systems". It took me a little while before it dawned on me exactly what was being discussed. When I explained this to my wife, she said "Perhaps it will improve your manners. Instead of telling me to 'belt up', you will now tell me to 'restrain yourself' ".
There has been support for the Bill, some opposition and some doubt. I hope that supporters of the Bill will not mind if I reply mainly to the opposers and

doubters. I begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House not only for their speeches, but for their campaigning. I do not see among them the interfering, busybody, freedom-hating politicians some letters and articles suggested hon. Members are. Indeed, they are among the more independent and fearless Members of the House.
We have introduced this Bill because we believe that its passing will save money, lives and casualties. Despite the arguments about enforcement and liberty, we believe that the House and the public wanted this measure. I hope that we are right. If the House rejected the Bill tonight, it would certainly not help the campaign to persuade people to wear seat belts.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked why the Bill had been introduced in this form so that exemptions would be brought in by negative resolution. I believe that it will be virtually impossible to act in any other way. The necessary exemptions are difficult to foresee. The hon. Gentleman quoted a large number of examples, and undoubtedly the situation will require to be reviewed in the light of experience. That delegated power will make it possible for the Government to be more flexible and rapidly responsive to public opinion. We believe that acting in any other way would make it more difficult to proceed.

Mr. Fry: Will the Minister say why this cannot be undertaken by affirmative rather by negative resolution?

Mr. Marks: We feel that to bring in an order under the affirmative procedure for the number of times that may be required would take up a great deal of the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Hon. Members have admitted that it could happen in a large number of instances even after the Committee stage.
The hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Fowler) thought that we should use methods other than compulsion—all the alternatives of publicity, flashing lights and cars that would not go without the safety belts being fastened. We and other countries have tried such alternatives. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said,


a good deal of money is spent on publicity, which has only a temporary effect and does not achieve what we want. Financial and insurance adjustments are difficult to operate and costly and do not appear to have a measurable effect. The gadgets that have been suggested are costly and easily foiled, as the American experience showed, and it would take many years to insist that most cars had them.
Experience with some other laws does not suggest that this one would be widely disregarded. The evidence is that people would wear their seat belts, first, because Parliament had said we should and, second, because of the danger of prosecution. It is implausible to say that an appreciable number of drivers will go to great lengths to hoodwink the police by draping belts over their shoulders to suggest that they were being worn. Non-wearing is mainly an act of omission and not of defiance.
The consultations that are to follow the Bill are a statutory requirement. It would be wasteful to duplicate them with consultations beforehand, especially when it is not known how long the Bill will take to reach the statute book. Parliament would probably not have taken a lenient view of consultations which assumed that we would be given this power.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister give a guarantee on the Government's behalf that, following those consultations, whatever proposals are made, including those for exemptions, will be fully debated?

Mr. Marks: That will depend on whether the orders are prayed against and hon. Members want a debate.

Mr. Fowler: And if they do?

Mr. Marks: The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had not agreed to such a provision being inserted in the 1968 Transport Act. Enforcement would have been difficult then when only about 15 per cent. of cars had seat belts. Nowadays, they are fitted in 95 per cent. of cars and police can tell from registration numbers whether compulsion applies.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who, along with the rest of

his party, is not here now, made a typical speech—witty and inaccurate.

Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend said that the police could tell from a number plate. Is it not true that a number of drivers have personalised number plates, which disguise the true date of registration?

Mr. Marks: I am grateful for that question. Having given up some time for the benefit of hon. Members, I hope that they will not mind if I now get on.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely was probably the only person who could make inaccurate statements about both police and pregnancy in the same sentence. We have not suggested that pregnancy should be a reason for exemption. That is a matter for consultation.
Whether the police are against the Bill is doubtful. At our last consultation, the majority of chief constables were in favour of such a Bill. The majority saw no difficulty in enforcement and accepted the proposal. Some oppose it on the grounds that they have enough laws to enforce already, while others are strongly in favour of it, including one of the police trade unions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he wants to get on, but there is no such thing as a police trade union.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Now, perhaps, I can get on.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I cannot trace the parliamentary Question to which he referred, but one estimate by the Department was that such a law in a full year would avoid 200 fatal and serious casualties. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the year before enforcement of the wearing of crash helmets and the year after. We should remember that the general public often regard the Second Reading of a Bill as the time of decision. If we pass the Bill tonight, I hope that the publicity that it will gain, which will probably be as much as we gained through previous advertising, will be enough to cause an increase in the use of seat belts. The time of the legislation about crash helmets should have been the point with which comparison was effected.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that we could not compare the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act with the Bill because the former was a matter for employment. He was effectively answered by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell). The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act also applies to the self-employed, who have only themselves to think about. It is true that we do not, if we can help it, legislate about what happens in a person's home, for we regard the Englishman's home as his castle. Too many Englishmen regard their cars as tanks.
It would not be possible to apply to Northern Ireland a clause added to an Act which did not apply there. It is likely that the authorities in Northern Ireland will introduce similar regulations imposing the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to driving instructors. We shall exempt cars without dual controls. Cars used by instructors will come within the scope of the intended exemption.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) referred to eye injuries caused by glass and windscreen damage. The merits of laminated windscreens versus toughened windscreens were discussed. The number of casualties in those examples form a very small percentage of accidents. The seat belt restrains the driver from hitting the screen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) referred to the problems of the disabled. My hon. Friend the Minister has already said that he will consult not only the Under-Secretary of State who deals with the disabled, but organisations for the disabled. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) mentioned licence endorsement. Endorsement cannot be introduced by regulation and does not form part of the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who made a powerful speech against the Bill, accepts that it is sensible to wear a seat belt. He admitted that he often, unwisely, does not wear a belt on short journeys. He accepts the argument that if the Bill becomes law, there will be a considerable reduction in

the number of drivers and passengers killed and injured, but he does not believe that the law should be used to save people from themselves. He agrees that some of our laws do just that, for instance, the restrictions on the sale and use of drugs. He agrees that the use of drugs is debilitating to society. Is not the figure of road casualties today debilitating to our society?
Thousands are killed each year on the roads and tens of thousands are similarly injured. We believe that the Bill and its effect will reduce the number of deaths by about 1,000 and the number of those seriously injured by about 10,000 per year. To my mind, those figures justify the Bill. It may be that if the figures were much higher, the hon. and learned Gentleman and others would support us. Perhaps if it were 10,000 deaths and 100,000 casualties they would be in the "Aye" Lobby tonight. But for me the figures are high enough.
The argument that adults should not be required to do something which on mature consideration they do not wish to do is interesting. I suppose that some people sometimes break the law after mature consideration. There may well be adults in our prisons who have defrauded and embezzled after mature consideration.
However, it is not like that with seat belts. People who fail to wear seat belts do so mainly because they cannot be bothered or are in a hurry, or because it is a short journey anyway. Putting on a seat belt sets the standard for the journey we are going to make—a conscious decision not to rush and a recognition that the vehicle we are in can be lethal to those who are in it as well as those outside it. People who have developed the habit of wearing a seat belt do not find it the nuisance and burden that has been suggested.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn and I are not in agreement tonight. On many non-party issues we are in agreement. Less than two years ago we both sponsored a Bill that is now the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. We were told then by the hon. and learned Gentleman's fellow members of the legal profession that we were legalising lying. Our reply was that even if that were true, we were helping to prevent suffering. I had hoped


that the hon. and learned Gentleman would feel the same about this Bill. I still dare to hope so.
The attitude of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is different from that of almost anyone else who has taken part in the debate. Most accept that it is more sensible to wear a seat belt and that if one is in a car accident, the odds would be that if one were not wearing a seat belt, one would be more likely to be killed or seriously injured than one would be if one were wearing a seat belt. The hon. Gentleman does not believe that. He has his own statistics, his own personal piece of research—his accident.
However, I must tell him that, despite that experience of his and the occasional widely publicised similar accident, the odds are still the same. Independent as well as Government research, in this country and others, is agreed on this point. If the hon. Gentleman has another accident—I hope that he does not—the odds are still that if he is not wearing a seat belt, he is in greater danger of being killed or injured than he is if he is wearing one. The odds do not alter with each accident.
Furthermore, passengers usually follow the driver's example. The point about drivers' decisions not to wear seat belts is that it becomes very embarrassing for the passenger to decide to put on a seat belt. It is almost an insult to the driver's driving. If the hon. Gentleman's passengers follow his example and do not wear a seat belt, again the odds are that if they are involved in an accident, they are more likely to be killed or injured.
I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman spoke. I heard later that he used the word "executioner" and suggested that if he had another accident, I and my fellow Members who tonight will vote for this Bill would be acting as his executioner. All the information that is available from this country and others, from Government sources and independent sources, indicates that if he has an accident when not wearing his seat belt, he is his own executioner.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his family may now have psychological problems about deciding to wear seat belts. But for his sake and theirs

I urge him to look at all the facts and to heed what has been said tonight not only by supporters, but by opponents of the Bill who have recognised that wearing seat belts is sensible. I am sure that the passage of the Bill will help him, as a law-abiding citizen, to do just that.
There is another attitude to this matter as well as that of people who agree that to wear a seat belt is sensible but decide to vote against the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has led a great deal of the opposition to the Bill. I wonder how I can convince him that he should not carry through his opposition. He is a reasonable man in some respects. He sometimes wears a belt. Like many other people, he wears it on the motorway where the likelihood of an accident is far less than it is on other roads. However, he regards the Bill, as many other people do, as an infringement of liberty.
Other hon. Members have talked about the use of seat belts in aircraft, but, like the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, they have not said whether they would refuse to wear a belt in an aircraft. The distance to be travelled has nothing to do with the wearing of a belt. The point of wearing the belt is the same if one crosses the Channel as it is if one crosses the Atlantic.
It is argued that we should live dangerously and that we should not think of safety first. I suppose that if we thought of safety first, we should not travel at all. If we gave safety much higher priority, I suppose that we should cover our concrete roads with railway lines. However, in the Bill we are talking about the need to reduce the number of casualties caused by drivers and passengers failing to wear belts in cars and vans which are equipped with them and are required to have them.
The wearing of belts is the biggest single contribution we can make to saving lives on our roads. We have tried persuasion. There has been some very effective television propaganda. But the greatest propaganda in support of the wearing of belts is the opinion of this House. We feel that the backing of the law should be given to that persuasion.
The debate has ranged widely over many matters, some of them matters of detail about the way in which a seat belt law might apply in practice. That is as it


should be. The House is naturally and properly anxious to explore all aspects of the issue, but in the end one simple question stands out from all the rest: should the law be used to compel motorists to protect themselves by wearing the belts which are provided in nearly all cars? I do not believe that it is any longer possible to dispute the substantial saving of life and suffering which would be achieved if all the available seat belts were worn.

In a number of special cases—many of them have been mentioned today—exemption will be justified. We shall examine those cases. But I ask the House to weigh carefully the consequence of rejecting the Bill. I believe that we should support it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 139.

Division No. 73.1
AYES
10.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dykes, Hugh
Lamborn, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Edge, Geoff
Lane, David


Archer, Peter
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Armstrong, Ernest
Elliott, Sir William
Le Marchant, Spencer


Ashley Jack
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, David
Loveridge, John


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)
Loyden, Eddie


Awdry, Daniel
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Luard, Evan


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Luce, Richard


Baker, Kenneth
Eyre, Reginald
McCartney, Hugh


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McCusker, H.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacGregor, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fowler Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Maclennan, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Magee, Bryan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marks, Kenneth


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilbert, Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Golding, John
Mendelson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Graham, Ted
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Grhfiths, Eldon
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, w. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric


Cartwright, John
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harper, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newens, Stanley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Normanton, Tom


Clemitson, Ivor
Hayhoe, Barney
Ogden, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Concannon, J. D.
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cope, John
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Ovenden, John


Corrie, John
Hordern, Peter
Owen, Dr David


Costain, A. P.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawford, Douglas
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Crawshaw, Richard
Hurd, Douglas
Parker, John


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crouch, David
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
James, David
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Greville
Phipps, Dr Colin


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Raison, Timothy


Deakins, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Reid, George


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, Wiliam (Stockton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rooker, J. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kinnock, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Durant, Tony
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Tim




Scott, Nicholas
Stanley, John
Ward, Michael


Scott-Hopkins, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Watkins, David


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Watkinson, John


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wellbeloved, James


Shepherd, Colin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, James (Pollock)


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Stoddart, David
Whitlock, William


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Strang, Gavin
Wiggin, Jerry


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R,
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Silverman, Julius
Thompson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Sims, Roger
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sinclair, Sir George
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Small, William
Tomlinson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wriggiesworth, Ian


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. James A, Dunn and


Stainton, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Mr. Roger Moate.


Stallard, A. W.






NOES


Alison, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Arnold, Tom
Grist, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grylls, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Hall, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)


Banks, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bell, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hicks, Robert
Ridsdale, Julian


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Biffen, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Biggs-Davison, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Blaker, Peter
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Sir Anthony


Body, Richard
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bradford, Rev Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Brittan, Leon
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester, Fred


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Leadbitter, Ted
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Skinner, Dennis


Cockcroft, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Conlan, Bernard
Lloyd, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
McElhone, Frank
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Cryer, Bob
Macfarlane, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Drayson, Burnaby
Madden, Max
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marten, Neil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


English, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Torney, Tom


Fell, Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick
Tuck, Raphael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Davild (Basingstoke)
Viggers, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)
Wakeham, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molloy, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ford, Ben
Molyneaux, James
Wall, Patrick


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Freud, Clement
Morgan, Geraint
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fry, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Glnsburg David
Neubert, Michael
Woof, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Newton, Tony



Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodlad Alastair
Parry, Robert
Mr. Nicholas Winterton and


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. John Wells.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Percival, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

HOUSING CORPORATION, (ADVANCES)

10.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.
The Order is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, but before it can be made it requires an affirmative resolution of this House. The Order is to be made under Section 7(5) of the Housing Act 1974 and provides for an increase in the overall borrowing limit of the Housing Corporation from £400 million to £600 million.
The Corporation is empowered by this section of the Act to borrow from various sources, principally the Secretary of State—and thus, in effect, the National Loans Fund—in order to fulfil its statutory duties, mainly lending to registered housing associations, within an overall ceiling of £400 million. This may be increased by Order to not more than £750 million.
The Corporation's overall indebtedness today is £385 million, and the Corporation will probably reach the present statutory borrowing limit of £400 million by about April. The debt is, of course, secured by mortgages on the housing provided. The authorised programme of support for housing associations undertaken by the Corporation involves the approval of about 33,000 new and improved houses and flats a year in England, Scotland and Wales, at an estimated cost during the next financial year of nearly £400 million. Of this, about £300 million is covered by Government grants, the remaining £100 million being loans. The proposed new limit of £600 million will probably be reached by the end of 1978.
As hon. Members will know, the Housing Corporation was originally established by the Housing Act 1964 to channel Government support to co-ownership and cost-rent societies. In the 1974 Housing Act we gave the Corporation wide new powers to regulate the

housing association movement by registering those associations which are to be eligible for financial assistance from public sources. Before registering a housing association, the Corporation has to be satisfied about its probity and managerial capability, and also about the need for a further housing association in the area.
By the housing association grant provisions of the Act, the Government gave housing associations thus registered a tremendous incentive to provide housing for rent both by new building and improvement and conversion. This grant consists of an initial capital payment, on completion of the project, designed to meet the full deficit and to enable the housing association to reduce its outstanding loan to a level which can be serviced from the estimated fair rent income, not of an allowance for management and maintenance costs. Housing association grant is normally expected to account for about 75 per cent. of the capital cost of a project and there is no burden on the rates.
In the Government's view, the Corporation has been meeting the statutory responsibilities placed upon it very effectively. Most housing associations who have applied for registration have now had their applications dealt with and 1,422 have so far been registered. Sixty-eight have been refused registration after very thorough and intensive inquiries. Others have been asked to make changes in their organisation or proposed area of operations to bring them within the criteria.
The housing association movement is now carrying out a programme of about 45,000 approvals a year, of which three-quarters are financed through the Housing Corporation and the remainder through local authorities. In fact the movement could achieve an even higher level of output but we have to keep approvals within the public expenditure provision.
The Housing Corporation is now concentrating on the task of ensuring that the available funds for housing associations are channelled into the areas of greatest housing need, especially stress area rehabilitation in London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool and the other major cities, and into providing housing for the special needs of people like the elderly and the disabled. This is an important


role which supplements that of local authorities, many of which have come increasingly to recognise the help that housing associations can provide.
In order to allow this work to continue I ask the House to approve this Order.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: The Opposition welcome the Order, which increases the borrowing power of the Housing Corporation from £300 million to £600 million. As I indicated when we discussed the last Order of this nature on 3rd April 1974, the Opposition take some pride in the achievements of the Housing Corporation. After all, it was created by a Conservative Administration and our Housing and Planning Bill, subsequently enacted by this Government as the Housing Act 1974, was intended to widen and strengthen the Housing Corporation's powers and in particular to extend its borrowing limit to £750 million towards which the Order now approaches.
On the figures available to me, the progress of the Housing Corporation and the housing association movement has been quite remarkable. By 31st March 1973 there were in existence about three fair rent schemes with 56 dwellings. In the succeeding 12 months, contrary to all other housing trends, this had expanded rapidly to 227 schemes with 9,792 dwellings. Prior to that year—1973–74—the Housing Corporation had concentrated on co-ownership schemes rather than fair rent schemes. It was that policy which had produced only three fair rent schemes as against 40,000 co-ownership schemes in the eight to nine years up to March 1973.
However, increased costs and interest rates have priced co-ownership out of the market. The subsidies available for co-ownership schemes are only those available for the individual owner-occupier—namely, tax relief against mortgage interests. Hence, co-ownership schemes are at a tremendous disadvantage compared with fair rents schemes. The fair rent schemes, as the Minister has mentioned, qualify for a 75 per cent. grant Moreover, the occupier's outgoings are limited to fair rents which in turn attract rent allowances. This is far different

from the picture in connection with the occupier under a co-ownership scheme.
Clearly, the time has therefore come to review the system of co-ownership and to develop new forms of tenure, especially on the equity-sharing principle. Such schemes could easily be developed by housing associations and would require less financial support from Government than rented schemes. They would be of particular help to those who prefer to buy their own homes but who cannot immediately afford the full cost. At present such people have no alternative but to join the queue for subsidised housing. The development of equity shared housing would not only reduce the subsidy for housing these people but would also reduce the pressure on heavily subsidised rented housing and also ensure that this went only to those most in need.
During our discussions in Committee on the Housing Bill 1974 I drew attention to the difficulties being experienced by co-ownership schemes which were then becoming apparent. I was assured by the Ministers in charge of the Bill that these problems would be examined. It is a matter of some disappointment that the Government have taken no further action in this sphere. I hope that the present economic constraints on housing subsidies will cause the Government to re-examine the matter and to look at it more closely and urgently. I can assure them of the wholehearted support of this side of the House were they to do that.
In the rented sphere one would like to see housing associations concentrate increasingly on special schemes for particular groups of people in need. I have in mind, as the Minister himself apparently has in mind, especially elderly single people, single-parent families and the disabled. With the Rent Act hitting the supply of furnished lettings it is particularly important that special provision be made for these groups. This is the more so because local authorities continue to concentrate on two- and three-bedroomed accommodation for families, leaving the groups I have mentioned in great deprivation.
The Government have recognised this problem and in Circular 64/75 exhorted local authorities to produce a greater


supply of smaller accommodation, but with the lessening of housing subsidies, 85 per cent. of which are taken up to expenditure on projects already approved, the provision for the special groups remains pitiably low. I am certain that the gap is one which the Housing Corporation is ready to close, given the right encouragement and assistance from the Government.
In this connection, I am certain that a relaxation of the Parker Morris standards, especially in the provision of accommodation for single people, would be of tremendous help to the Housing Corporation in making this money go further. The existing cost yardsticks also make it difficult to get smaller units approved. Indeed, the delays attendant on cost yardstick procedures increase the estimated cost of scheme in a time of rapid inflation.
I therefore press the Government to re-examine the cost yardstick procedures and to consider whether they are really necessary. Provided a total ceiling is put upon the funds available, there is no real reason why the housing associations should not be given greater freedom to work in co-operation with the Housing Corporation and local authorities. By reducing central interference in this way I believe that far more homes will be produced far more cheaply and far more quickly than can be done at present.
As it is, housing associations have a distinct edge on local authorities, as they take on average 26 months from approval to buy land to the letting of complete homes—immeasurably quicker than the local authority. However, this time can be further reduced by elimination of what are essentially unnecessary administrative requirements.
Another matter inhibiting the work of housing associations is the drop in improvement grants, which have fallen from more than 450,000 in 1973 to 159,000 in 1975. The published figures do not reveal how many of the allocations to private owners go to housing associations, but the housing associations obviously have suffered considerably from the total drop in improvement grants that have been approved.
This is particularly serious when one considers that until recently housing associations were foremost in urban renewal in co-operation with local authorities.

The Minister in his opening remarks seemed to recognise that the salvaging and rescuing of obsolescent housing in our inner cities—the areas of greatest housing stress—is probably the greatest single priority we have.
It is therefore a matter of extreme disappointment that the Government have failed to respond to this challenge and are denying the supply of money to this vital area whilst diverting the limited resources available to areas which many of us consider less important, namely, the fulfilment of their dogma on public ownership through municipalisation or the Community Land Act. Thus, while we do not quarrel with the Government over the Order—indeed, we congratulate them on bringing it forward—our welcome is tinged with deep regret that it is not backed by parallel policies which would ensure the most effective use of money, the raising of which we are tonight being asked to approve.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I was interested in what the Minister said in support of the Order. I wish to declare an interest as a member of a housing association which is engaged in a considerable variety of work—the restoration of cottage properties, providing special accommodation for single persons, and the construction of traditional semidetached three-bedroomed properties. We do that across a variety of locations in England and Wales. In that way we follow the great traditions that have been built up by housing associations and societies in recent years, fulfilling a very useful and valuable role in addition to the other two main providers of accommodation—the local authorities and the developers of private owner-occupied houses.
I have been interested in this movement for many years. I was appointed by the men Secretary of State to the committee headed by Sir Karl Cohen that conducted a wide inquiry into housing associations and societies. Although that committee arrived at no conclusions and made no recommendations, much of what has followed since flowed from that inquiry.
I was very interested to have the Minister's assurance on urban renewal. Housing associations have a very important rôle to play here. There are city centres in many locations which should at present


be in the process of restoration. The associations could be active, too, in terms of the rehabilitation of old properties, and in the construction of new residential accommodation in city centres that have often been cleared under slum clearance arrangements. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give an assurance, so far as he is able, that housing corporations will be more involved in schemes of urban renewal than hitherto. It is difficult to see how city centres can be restored as quickly as they should be unless they get the added support of central Government resources flowing through the housing corporations.
I wish to pay tribute to the tremendous amount of voluntary work that goes into this third sector of housing activity. I was interested in the figures the Minister gave concerning the societies that have been registered. I understood him to say that this number totalled 1,422 with six refusals. It would be interesting to know on what grounds the refusals were made. I am not sure about the criteria for registration. I understood the Minister to say that a number had been deferred.
The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to reply to an inquiry that I made about the resources made available to the Housing Corporation. In a letter dated 20th February, he said:
At 1975 public expenditure survey prices we have made £198 million available to the Housing Corporation for the financial year 1975–76. This will enable them to approve 21,000 new dwellings and 9,000 improved dwellings involving the payment of approximately £150 million in housing association grant.
When using the phrase "housing association grant", was the hon. Gentleman referring to a capital grant, or was that the grant that was made available in the current financial year to balance the deficits that arose from the operation of the Housing Corporation's funding arrangements?
My concern about the housing association movement is that, as I understand it, on the grant of regulated rents for accomodation that housing associations provide, the Government, through the Housing Corporation, underwrite the deficits on their management accounts. Regarding the standard of building which they are allowed to undertake and the estimated

regulated rents that will be forthcoming from the accommodation which they provide, to what extent is the annual deficit on housing association management accounts monitored?
I understand that the subsidies run for a 60-year term. Is it possible to predict the total subsidies available to housing associations and societies for that full 60-year period? My concern is in respect not only of the capital made available through the Housing Corporation, but of the level of the subsidies that have to be made good for all housing associations and societies over a 60-year term by means of public resources. Unless it is carefully administered and considered from the outset, the impression is that the commitment is open-ended. In the context of the high cost of renovation of properties and the construction of new dwellings, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we are able to determine the level of subsidies and that the monitoring of that level will be effective?
This matter is of concern not only to those who are interested in the level of housing subsidies but, significantly, to the whole housing association movement. If the level of subsidies becomes too great, the whole movement will be put at risk, because Governments cannot undertake an open-ended commitment of that character over a long period of 60 years. They need to measure the anticipated outgoings in terms of capital and current expenditure against the level of rents and other income which will be forthcoming. This is an important aspect of the whole question of the funding of the Housing Corporation and the resources provided through that institution to the housing associations, in both capital and current commitment terms.
I entirely support the Order, but I think that we need an assurance about the monitoring of the vast expenditure of public money and the long-term commitments that are entered into. I shall be interested to hear what the Under-Secretary of State has to say in this respect.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Armstrong: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to reply to the debate.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) agrees with me for once about something that we are trying to do, although in some of his remarks I detected a bit of harking back to the old controversies. I shall not rehearse the arguments. I also suspected—I hope I was wrong—that in some way the hon. Gentleman was comparing the contribution made by the Housing Corporation with that made by local authorities. We see one as being complementary to the other, and we consider that the Housing Corporation is doing a valuable job indeed.

Mr. Rossi: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is our view, too.

Mr. Armstrong: I am glad to hear that. I detected an anxiety to indulge in controversy.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) for his contribution to the debate. I shall try to reply to the points that have been raised, and I assure both hon. Gentlemen that if I omit anything I shall read what has been said and supplement anything that I say tonight by writing to them.
The Working Party on Housing Cooperatives, which the Minister set up in 1974 and whose report was published in January of this year, recommended that higher levels of subsidy should be made available. As the hon. Gentleman said, at present co-ownerships are entitled only to the option mortgage subsidy, and this proposal must await the outcome of the current review of housing finance.
My reply to the hon. Gentleman's point about Housing Corporation schemes is that one-third of them are to meet special categories. There is no division of opinion between the two sides of the House on that. New standards have been laid down, and yardsticks have recently been issued for single person housing. The whole yardstick system is under review. I cannot say more than that now.
The drop in improvement grant, about which the hon. Gentleman keeps reminding us, does not apply to housing associations. The housing association grant is for all schemes—improvements as well as new building—and I have here some figures that are rather interesting. In 1975–76, 18,000 housing association

grants were approved, compared with 10,000 in 1974–75.
The Housing Corporation is diverting an increasing proportion of resources to urban rehabilitation. We hope that it is taking particular care to deal with areas of housing stress. I am assured that the Corporation considers all applications very carefully, and I understand that most refusals have been in areas that are already well served by existing housing associations. That is one of the main reasons why certain applications have been rejected.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Am I to understand that the Corporation is looking at the geographical spread of housing associations, and that none of the refusals has been for malpractice or inadequacy, but only on the ground of the over-provision of housing associations or societies in an area? It would be difficult to make an adjudication between the work of one institution against the performance of another on a geographical basis.

Mr. Armstrong: I stress that despite pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is a decision of the Housing Corporation, not of my Department. Our information is that the majority of applications that have been turned down have been rejected for that reason, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to delve further into the criteria there is no reason why we should not correspond on the issue.
The housing association grant is an initial, once-for-all capital grant based on the first year's estimate of fair rent income. In practice it is a single payment, although there is provision for payment on account and instalments on completion of the project. It is calculated to reduce loans advanced by the lending authority, which may be a local authority or the Housing Corporation, in respect of acquisition costs, works costs, fees, internal administration expenses, home loss and disturbance payments and capitalised interest to a level that can be serviced out of the estimate of fair rent income, minus an allowance for future management and maintenance. The grant is expected to average between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of costs, but in high-cost areas it could be more.
It is never easy to find the right balance in the allocation of resources.


The Housing Corporation is making a valuable contribution towards solving our severe housing problems. The Order will enable it to continue with that worthwhile job. I hope that the House will give the Order its approval.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dunn.]

PNEUMOCONIOSIS (COMPENSATION)

10.42 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I welcome the opportunity to introduce a debate on pneumoconiosis compensation, but I wish to make it clear that I am speaking about compensation for people who contract that dreadful disease through employment other than coal mining. There are a number of reasons for drawing the attention of the House to the matter. For the past 12 months I have been raising the matter because of specific constituency interest.
I am disappointed because, despite my questions and letters to Ministers, the Government have not moved at all on the issue. It is particularly disappointing for me, because I support the Government on most occasions and I regret their intransigence on this issue.
The tripartite talks initiated by the Government with the coal industry resulted in a compensation fund supported by Government finance. It meant that those men who contracted the disease throungh working in the coal industry could, under certain circumstances, obtain financial compensation, or that their widows could obtain compensation without resorting to action in the civil courts. That scheme is understandably specific to the coal industry, but it has created a situation in which people suffering from the same disease are being afforded different treatment by the Government. I regard that as an intolerable situation,

as do those affected by the disease. That is why I have been pressing the Government, in concert with some of my hon. Friends, for so long.
At present, although there is no fund for industries other than coal mining, those who have contracted the disease in another industry can still take civil action in the courts if—and this is important—there is someone against whom action is possible.
My interest is specific. West Cumbria has traditionally been an iron ore mining area as well as a coal mining area. I represent many people who have been—and some who still are—iron ore miners. The one iron ore mine in the United Kingdom remaining in operation is in my constituency—the British Steel Corporation mine at Beckermet. West Cumbria was a boom area for iron ore mining in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but the industry is now in decline, although I am pleased to say that the one mine remaining is doing very well.
As in coal mining, there has been a considerable incidence of pneumoconiosis in the iron ore mining industry and in many others—the pottery industry, slate quarrying in Wales and elsewhere, gypsum and barytes mining, the lagging and construction industries, and the brickmaking industry. It is also found among foundry workers. Although the problem is not specific to iron ore mining, it is with that industry that I am mainly concerned.
In West Cumbria we have the intolerable situation of iron ore miners and coal miners living together, many with the same disease, and the iron ore miners receiving no help from the Government and being entitled to no compensation as of right, while their neighbours and friends, the coal miners, are able to obtain compensation. Similarly, the widow of an iron ore miner is unable to obtain compensation, while the widow of a coal miner in the same community can. That is so divisive and unhappy a situation in a community renowned for its closeness that it stands out as an error and injustice, which should be rectified.
It may be asked why there has been no recourse to the law by the men or their trade union. There are a number of reasons, the principal one being that in almost all mine closures, because of the rapid decline of the industry and the


disappearance of companies that owned the mines, there is no organisation left against which civil action can be taken. That is yet another close parallel with the situation that existed in the coal industry and was one of the main reasons for the creation of the scheme, with Government support, for that industry. As I also represent a number of coal miners and their dependants, that is a scheme that I support, although it has its defects.
The union representing the iron ore miners has no organisation against which it can act. One of the reasons for the coal industry scheme was the elimination of the necessity for long and expensive litigation. If it was right that the Government should act for that reason in one industry, why are they refraining from acting to eliminate the same set of circumstances in a similar industry?
I visited the British Steel Corporation mine at Beckermet in January this year and was delighted to see that the conditions there were excellent. The mine is highly mechanised and the working conditions have been greatly improved. It is hoped to expand the operations, and I hope that that will happen.
I was delighted to learn that approximately 20 per cent. of all the iron ore used at the Workington plant is now mined locally. That is a considerable achievement, and I hope that the Corporation will be able to build on it. What is more important is that great strides have been made in eliminating the scourge of pneumoconiosis. I understand that there have been no new cases for many years. Workers with the disease from iron ore mines are still to be found in many of the urban communities and villages in my constituency, however, such as Cleator Moor and Frizington. There are many cruel disablements because of the illness, and there are also many widows in that area.
The Government have announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on civil liability. When the Commission was established by the previous Government, the then Prime Minister was pressed to give assurances that that body would not be used to delay or obfuscate possible action or decisions in the interim. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed by Labour Members, many of whom are now members of the present Government. Therefore, it ill becomes

them now to take the view that nothing can be done when they themselves made criticisms of an earlier Administration. Although I do not doubt the usefulness of the Royal Commission, which is examining various categories of liability, I must point out that it has no special remit on this problem and there is no guarantee that it will be able to come up with a solution.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 205 on this subject, which has now been signed by more than 200 Government supporters. Although I do not seek to over-emphasise the importance of Early-Day Motions, it is unusual to find such overwhelming support for a motion. Obviously there is considerable feeling on the Labour Benches, as on the Conservative Benches, on this subject.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman said that there was support on both sides of the House on this matter. As he knows, this problem has expressed itself in my constituency, which adjoins his. Many Conservative Members echo the sentiments that he has expressed.

Dr. Cunningham: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for supporting me in this matter. He continues to keep in contact with me on it. Some of his constituents are involved in civil actions in the courts and, through him and their solicitors, have been in contact with me on a number of occasions.
The TUC also is taking an interest in this matter. The case is just, particularly for iron ore miners, in exactly the same occupation of mining, who are suffering exactly the same disease for the same reasons. One hopes that in acknowledging the case the Government will be more forthcoming in answering our requests. I cannot bring myself to believe that when the Government agreed to the establishment of a fund for the coal industry they decided to go no further on pneumoconiosis. I cannot believe that a Labour Government said "We must do this because coal mining is a major industry, involving thousands of men, but we can contain it here. The small groups in other industries, who suffer, as do their dependants, from the same dreadful disease, will not have social justice extended to them." That


would be the very antithesis of Socialism. Ministers must be sympathetic to the point.
The extent of the problem of the Cumberland iron ore miners is not easy for me, as a Member of Parliament, to gauge. We want the Government—it is a matter for the Government—to take the initiative and to call together both management and unions in the industries affected and to set up a working party to gauge the extent of the problem with some accuracy and bring it home to those propagating the arguments and to the Government themselves. Without such research, no one can say how widespread the problem is.
This is not a plea for immediate public expenditure, so the Government cannot reject it on those grounds—although obviously, if the Government conceded the case, public expenditure would be involved in the longer term.
The Cumberland iron ore miners have made a great contribution to this country. In my work on this case, in an old file I came across a public notice issued under the Defence of the Realm Act by the Ministry of Munitions of War. Referring to a strike by the miners, it urged the men to return to work because of the importance of their work to the national well-being and welfare. It called upon "all loyal citizens" to resume work immediately and gave notice that
all persons who incite to any stoppage of war material or to acts calculated or likely to restrict production of such material are guilty of an offenc under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the penalty for which is penal servitude for life or such lesser punishment as may be awarded.
Many iron ore miners were awarded lesser punishment. As a result of resuming work, they contracted pneumoconiosis. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure them now that that punishment is not one that they will be left to endure alone.

11.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) spoke with great sympathy and much understanding tonight of a matter of concern to many of his constituents—the compensation of workers from industries such as iron ore mining,

quarrying, foundries and potteries, who have the misfortune to suffer from pneumoconiosis or similar lung diseases. This is a matter of concern to many hon. Members and is reflected in the Early-Day Motion that my hon. Friend tabled and to which he referred. It is one about which there is still, regrettably, much confusion.
I therefore welcome the opportunity of this debate to explain the Government's position in the matter and to clear up some of the misconceptions about the imaginative compensation scheme that is operated by the National Coal Board. I shall do my best in the short time available to deal with the various points that my hon. Friend raised. I hope that he will forgive me if, in doing so, I find it necessary to retread some of the ground that he has already travelled.
A person who suffers injury or disease as a result of his employment may recover damages against his employer if he can show, to the satisfaction of the courts, that his employer was negligent or in breach of a statutory duty. It is open to the employer and employee concerned to reach agreement on the settlement of such claims without recourse to the adjudication of the courts. In a successful claim for damages, it is the employer who is liable to pay, and under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 all employers, other than the nationalised industries, are required to take out and maintain insurance against this liability. That Act does not confer the right of compensation without proof of fault but ensures that a successful plaintiff or a claimant whose action is settled will receive the damages due to him. He will not be denied compensation because of his employer's inability to pay.
All sufferers from pneumoconiosis and similar prescribed diseases are, of course, also able to apply for the industrial injuries benefits of the State's social security scheme. The rates of disablement benefit, which are the same for all prescribed diseases and industrial accidents, are reviewed periodically by the Government. In order to receive such benefits it is enough for a pneumoconiotic to show that he has the disease and that he has worked in one of the occupations involving exposure to dust. The assessment of pneumoconiosis for benefit purposes is for a pneumoconiosis medical board,


whose decision at the moment is final. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Services announced recently, a limited right of appeal is to be introduced as soon as possible and draft Regulations for this purpose have been submitted to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration. Receipt of industrial injuries benefits does not preclude a claim for damages at common law in respect of the same disease.
My hon. Friend has rightly praised and welcomed the National Coal Board's Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme, but in expressing a wish for similar treatment to be accorded to pneumoconiosis sufferers in other industries he is, perhaps, sharing what I fear is a widespread misconception of the origin, purpose and intention of that scheme. It is not a new and additional means whereby miners can secure compensation, but is an alternative to the present system of litigation. It is important to understand fully the unique circumstances that led to its introduction. The position was that the Coal Board, following the decision in Pickles v. the National Coal Board, faced an unmanageably large number of claims, running into tens of thousands, at the pursuit of miners and former miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. It would have taken many years and a vast expenditure of money to deal with each case as an isolated claim at law. The Government therefore welcomed the efforts of the Board and the coal mining unions to find a solution to this problem whereby all claims could be settled quickly on an agreed basis.
It must be emphasised that this is an industry scheme, freely negotiated between the Board and the unions as a means of avoiding costly and wasteful litigation for both the employer and employees concerned. Furthermore, miners who accept benefits under the scheme do so from personal choice, as an alternative to pursuing their individual claims in the courts.
The Government provided financial assistance towards the setting up of the scheme only because of the Exchequer's overall responsibility for the finances of the Board and because the Board's potential liability in respect of former miners was so great in relation to the industry's current size and financial situation. The

Board is, of course, entirely responsible for any future costs arising from the continuance of the scheme.
My hon. Friend has said that he is not calling for an immediate extension of public expenditure, although he clearly accepts that this might eventually be necessary; he is merely seeking at this stage a Government initiative in setting up discussions between employers and unions in the industries concerned about the nature, size and extent of their pneumoconiosis problem.
If there is a single employer in these industries who is faced, as the National Coal Board was, with a large number of compensation claims it is, of course, open to him to discuss the possibility of settling these claims on an agreed basis either with the employees concerned or with their representatives. I see no reason, moreover, why employers and unions in these industries should not get together to review, discuss and assess the problems facing employees in the industry, and former employees, who suffer from pneumoconiosis, in just the same way as they meet to discuss other problems in the industry. Indeed, I welcome any such initiative aimed at resolving difficulties within an industry, but this should be for the employers and unions concerned. I very much doubt whether it would be appropriate for the Government to take such an initiative or for Government Departments to be involved in such discussions.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the various difficulties facing pneumoconiosis sufferers in bringing an action at law, but these difficulties are not peculiar to any one industry and may, indeed, arise in compensation cases generally; they are, no doubt, matters to which the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury will be giving attention. As the House knows, the Commission was set up to consider to what extent, in what circumstances, and by what means compensation should be payable to persons who suffer injury or disease in a fairly wide range of circumstances, including employment. In the course of its work, which it hopes to complete by the end of this year, the Commission will undoubtedly have made a close study of those industries with a pneumoconiosis problem and of workers difficulties in obtaining compensation.
The Commission's report will clearly influence future policy in this sphere and, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said on this point, we have made clear on numerous occasions in this House that we would not think it right to introduce new forms of compensation for industrial disease, particularly on a no-fault basis, until we have had an opportunity of considering the Commission's recommendations.
Finally, I should like to comment on the efforts being made by industry and by the Health and Safety Executive to reduce the prevalence of pneumoconiosis and other dust diseases and to minimise their effects. All employers are now required by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act to provide and maintain places of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risk to health. Regulations under the Factories Act and the Mines and Quarries Act have sought to ensure that dust at work is so controlled that risk is minimised.
The development and refinement of scientific methods of dust detection and measurement, in conjunction with medical studies, is now enabling standards to be set so that the health of workers who are employed in dusty processes is adequately safeguarded. Similar developments in dust control techniques have achieved improvements, notably in coal mining, pottery manufacture, cotton processing and foundry operations. Guidance on all these matters is available in various publications issued by the Health and Safety Executive.
In a number of industries, including potteries, foundries and cotton, there are

long-established joint standing committees comprising employers, workers, independent experts and officials of the executive, and these committees have done valuable work in applying new techniques to their own industries. A number of advisory committee reports have given details of the way in which to apply these new techniques to solve old problems. In addition, codes of practice have been prepared to assist industry in dealing with health risks. One such code, produced by a joint working party in 1974, dealt with the long-standing problem of dust produced when fettling castings with power-operated portable tools. The code sets standards for dust concentrations, describes how to measure them, recommends methods of dust control, gives guidance as to systematic monitoring of dust levels and the performance of control measures. Advice is directed towards both the workers who may be at risk and those who have the responsibility for protecting their employees.
I hope that the joint efforts of employers, trade unions, and the Health and Safety Executive will, in ways such as this, continue to make a significant contribution to the reduction of these diseases. Equally, I hope that the Royal Commission will have regard to what has been said in the House this evening, and take our remarks fully into account. I hope that they will find their reflection in the report eventually submitted to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.